Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I propose to share my time with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, Deputy McDaid and perhaps another speaker. I propose to take six minutes.

Tonight's motion essentially revolves around an issue that has, to all intents and purposes, been settled by voluntary renunciation or gifting to the Exchequer in the short term, and by the abolition of all such payments to sitting ex-Ministers following the next election. Leaving aside the very definite advice on the constitutionality of any legislation that would stop all such payments now, voluntary gifting of ministerial pensions, which in many cases involves substantial loss of income to some of those concerned, on all sides of these Houses and, in some cases, beyond, has a virtue that legislation does not have. Credit is due to all those who, in the light of changed circumstances, have foregone payments which they or their predecessors received since the system was first introduced in 1938, although in earlier days the sums would have been relatively smaller. In 1992, 2004 and 2009, there was a progressive tightening up of the scheme. I give Deputy Deenihan credit for what he decided to do.

The headline in The Irish Times last week, "Bertie Ahern and 15 others give up their ministerial pensions", brought to my mind a faint echo of the most famous renunciation in history which took place in the French National Assembly on the night of 4 August 1789. Against the background of great rural unrest, liberal noblemen renounced their feudal privileges. Here in Ireland, old landed elites that were displaced along the road to independence learned, sometimes at considerable personal cost, that dogmatic insistence on legal entitlements could be very unwise and occasionally lethal.

Constitutional legality and moral legitimacy are not always the same thing. Democratic countries, republics, even Communist and post-Communist states, all egalitarian in intention at the outset, develop a political class as well as bureaucratic upper tiers and commercial elites that, in effect, can often devise their own rules and rewards. One tendency all have in common is a subsequent difficulty in recognising themselves as others see them. It is too simplistic to attribute such perceptions only to media influence. Some bankers and developers have been accused, as recently as today, of failing to recognise how much has changed. None of us should allow it to be said of us in this House that even in a parliamentary democracy we have learned nothing and have forgotten nothing.

At the present time, not only our economic well-being and independence, but, to a certain extent, our democracy, are on trial. There is rarely a shortage of radical alternatives. Although politics must never become the reserve of those with the best access to private funding, a distinction must be made between those financial supports that are essential to do the job and payments that, effectively, are bonuses or extra rewards. As was pointed out, this debate takes place against the backdrop of serious, ongoing, domestic economic difficulties which we are striving to master and which demands or has cost serious effort, sacrifice and hardship for very many people. There is also international market turbulence which is an added potential danger to Ireland. As most of us realise, we cannot allow ourselves, as Members of the Houses, to be cosseted and cocooned from what faces our fellow citizens. We must show example by discarding systems of reward which, in today's circumstances, appear extravagant and not easily defensible.

We also speak at a time when the Croke Park pay deal is in the balance. Social partnership was always the alternative to the disastrous route that resulted from the Thatcher-Scargill confrontation across the water in the 1980s, a choice that could be ruinous to a small and vulnerable economy such as ours. President-for-life Arthur Scargill's recent advice to public sector workers to fight on against an Irish trade union negotiated deal - which he came to tell us was an unmitigated disaster - is probably one of the better reasons for supporting it.

To the outside world we must continue to demonstrate our determination to maintain our recovery strategy. I am sure that after reflection all colleagues in these Houses will wish to join in showing the nation a common sense of purpose, at least as far as the underlying issue being debated tonight is concerned. If there are any who cannot accept for themselves the validity of the case, they might at least defer to the general will inside and outside this House.

See this speech in context