Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I am aware the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle made that sacrifice. I and Deputy Gilmore offered our ministerial pensions to the Minister also and he accepted. The point is that in a time of such national difficulty this sense of leadership is required in the Oireachtas.

The issue of the salaries paid to other top people arose during and after the budget and the Minister promised a review process. The Labour Party stated in its pre-budget submission, and I agree, that there is no reason anybody paid out of the public purse should be paid more than €200,000, all included, expenses and everything else. The country cannot afford the level of salary being paid to the upper echelons, such as Secretary Generals and heads of various Government bodies. Neither can it afford some of the extraordinary salaries paid to people working in commercial semi-State bodies, not excluding RTE.

How can people benchmark such salaries with what is appropriate in times of such economic stringency and difficulty, where women are threatened with child benefit cuts and old aged pensioners have had their entitlement to a medical card altered? People will inevitably benchmark against the salaries of people who hold attractive, important and responsible jobs in the senior echelons of the public service. Therefore, the Minister should say whether he is of a mind to see members of Government formally reduce their salaries. As a consequence, people in the upper echelons of the public service, such as Secretaries General, also make an appropriate salary sacrifice that brings us down to a level of affordability that makes sense by comparison to what we know to be top salaries in other countries. I still do not understand why the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, put consultants' basic salaries at about the €250,000 mark. I am not convinced that this country can afford that level of salary at this time.

With regard to the expenses regime as set out in the Minister's amendment, the Labour Party will accept the proposal, which I understand was put forward by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Speaking as a former accountant, I believe it lacks one thing, which I pointed out to the Minister before. One way to reduce expenses is not only to set out a regime of expenses but to cap them. For example, with regard to mileage and other Deputies' expenses, Deputy Richard Bruton's annual claim for expenses is always in the modest range, as are the expenses attributed to the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan. Why not just set a cap on the total amount? Some expenses, for example, mileage, are at such a high level that Members must run up and down from one end of the country to the other - this applies in particular to some Members of the other House. I know some people live in very remote places and travel is expensive but, with the wider availability of public transport and the availability of good quality cars, it must be possible to work out, in conjunction with professional advice, what is a realistic charge for somebody's reckonable travel between Dublin and, for example, Cork, Galway or Kerry.

We should cap these expenses. The variation is very significant and, inevitably, when the media publicise Deputies' expenses, as is right and proper, the ones picked are always those at the absolute top end of the range, whereas the majority of Members of the House, and probably of the Seanad also, have relatively modest expenses. Some of the expenses claims, in mileage alone, are double the average industrial wage. This is what causes a difficulty in the public perception of what Members do in the Houses but it could be addressed. Expenses could be capped and I am sure a formula could be found where they reach a maximum at, for example, €25,000 or €35,000, depending on the distance one lives from Dublin. I have suggested this to the Minister previously because it would put a stop to the extraordinary figures that are quoted at times, but which probably only apply to a relatively small percentage of Members of both Houses.

Was the position of former taoisigh the subject of separate negotiation? The Minister might enlighten us again given that the transitional arrangements for former taoisigh are generous. Certain establishments are provided to them, such as Garda cars and drivers, which are not provided in other jurisdictions except for a period after holding office. Following that period, if a former Head of Government is attending a state function, he or she is supplied with appropriate transport. This is another area where, given the straitened times, savings could be made and it would not be to the discomfort of or cause danger to the former taoisigh. I wonder whether the arrangements arise from a more generous time when money was more freely available.

When the Minister has completed the comparative review of the salaries of top public servants, does he expect to publish it? We must remember that the salaries of such top officials influence the salaries of others such as bankers, whom the State is bailing out. We need to get a grip and insist that modesty or a slight retrenchment is the order of the day. When an bord snip nua presents its report, if the rumours are to be believed, it will be suggesting all sorts of reductions for people on very modest incomes. The Dáil must recognise this point.

The Labour Party welcomes this legislation. We would have preferred to see it taken in the same week as the Finance Bill because that would have given leadership. However, it is better late than never, although I would prefer if it was immediately implementable. There have been a variety of different legal opinions as to what was possible. If it is possible to cut the ministerial pension by 25%, why did the Minister not pick 35% or 55%? Was this on the basis of advice from the Attorney General? It might have been more appropriate to have sought a higher level of contribution.

It should be stated, as the Minister did, that of course all Members of the Dáil and Seanad are properly subject to the pension levy and are contributing all of the other extra taxes and levies, which is perhaps difficult for some people who have made commitments in line with their previous salary levels. Nonetheless, as some of those salary, pension and emolument levels were exceptionally high, there is a case for reducing them. The Minister might explain his thinking and the advice he received.

See this speech in context