Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Taoiseach has made the point that the Attorney General has advised him and the Government that it is unconstitutional to take away ministerial pensions and that this deals with the question of legitimate expectation. He put through a Bill last July making it effective from the day of the first meeting of the next Dáil that no serving Member of the Oireachtas will receive a ministerial pension; I support that legislation. I supported the case that this should apply to everybody across the board in equal fashion. I have the advice of three senior counsel, which makes it clear, from their perspective, that this matter is quite constitutional. The Taoiseach has already reduced ministerial pensions, which deals with the question of legitimate expectation. He has done that by Government decision.

When the Taoiseach served as Minister for Health and Minister for Finance the Government received advice from the then Attorney General that it was constitutional to take money from old people going into nursing homes. However, that was deemed to be unconstitutional and the advice of the Attorney General is only advice and has to be acted upon by the Government in session.

I can furnish the Taoiseach with the evidence of these three senior counsel that this matter is constitutional. I ask him again if he has spoken to the three Members involved. Is he in a position where he will continue to abdicate responsibility and leadership at a time when hundreds of thousands of people, as he well knows, are suffering from economic stress and pressure and this is an issue to which they consider leadership, and the demonstration of it, should apply? Every other Member of the House, as I understand it, who legitimately earned a ministerial pension has either given it up or allocated it to charity except for three members of the Taoiseach's party. Has the Taoiseach spoken to, encouraged and advised those three Members that in the interests of many people this perception and demonstration of leadership is important, or will he leave this matter drift along with the litany of other matters on which he failed to deliver?

See this speech in context