Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"— takes note of the Government's actions to deal with the economic crisis;

— recognises the budgetary measures taken by the Government to stabilise the public finances;

— notes the reduction in the number of Ministers of State and the reduction in staffing of Ministers' offices;

— acknowledges the extensive efforts of the Government to secure solidarity among the social partners;

— recognises the measures taken in the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 2009 which reduces the Ministerial

pensions of sitting members of either House of the Oireachtas by 25 per cent and provides that payment of such pensions to sitting members will cease after the next

general election;

— notes the Attorney General's advice that the immediate and total abolition of pensions for a single category of pensioner would be unconstitutional; and

— notes that many sitting members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament and others have made a gift of their Ministerial pensions to the Minister for Finance for the general benefit of the Exchequer."

It is well past time for the Dáil to have a calm, clear and reasoned discussion about the issue of ministerial pensions. What we have witnessed in the last week or so is a personalised focus on the pension position of individuals. It has been unedifying and has done little to advance any reasonable argument about fairness or leading by example.

I accept, given the enormous upheaval in the economy over the past two years and the sacrifices all sectors of the community have made, there is a need to ensure that leadership is shown by members of Oireachtas. Nonetheless, it is essential that the Dáil debates the matter in a rational manner. There was little room for reason in the controversy surrounding ministerial pensions. As we hurtled towards populist headlines, there was little thought for the personal circumstances that some - of an admittedly small group of individuals - may be enduring.

In my supplementary budget speech just over a year ago, I said that in the current economic circumstances: "Everyone must give according to their means. . . But before we ask anyone else to give, we in this House and in this Government must examine our own costs. We must lead by example." That is precisely what we did. The Government has taken a strong and clear line in reducing the costs of running our administrative and parliamentary system.

Let us look, therefore, at what has been done in this area over the past 18 months. In November 2008, the Government announced the decision of the voluntary surrender of 10% of their pay by Ministers and Ministers of State. In February, 2009, the Government introduced a pension-related deduction — the pension levy - which aimed to reduce the public service pay bill by an estimated €1 billion in a full year. While the average contribution is 7%, income over €60,000 was levied at 10.5%. All Members of the Oireachtas, rightly, had their pay reduced by the maximum amount under the levy. In April 2009, the Taoiseach announced that the number of Ministers of State was to be reduced from 20 to 15. This reduction also led to a reduction in the cost of running ministerial offices.

In the supplementary budget in April, I announced reductions in Oireachtas expenses; the abolition of the entitlement to further increments for Deputies, the abolition of some allowances relating to committee work and the halving of the allowance paid to Oireachtas committee Chairs.

In budget 2010, I announced the Government's decision to cut public service pay. Again, salaries of Members of the Oireachtas were cut according to their salary level. These were permanent reductions which will be reflected in future pension entitlements. Under this round of reductions, the salary of the Taoiseach was reduced by 20% which meant that when account is taken of the pension levy the Taoiseach's salary was cut by close to 30% in total.

Ministers and Secretaries General of Departments all took a pay cut of 15% which produced an overall cut of close to 25% when taken with the pension levy. That is in the absence of reference to the additional taxation measures contained in the supplementary budget of 2009.

Looking at that record, any reasonable person would have to agree that the Government has made and continues to make a real and very substantial contribution to reducing administrative costs on pay and other expenditures. This Government has taken more action than any previous Administration to reduce the cost of running our political system. I can also say without any fear of contradiction that the range of actions Ireland has taken on pay and administrative costs generally is without precedent among our European partners.

Turning to the issues raised in the motion and amendment before the Dáil this evening, anyone listening to much of the comment about ministerial pensions could be forgiven for thinking that the Government has done nothing to change the terms and conditions of ministerial pensions and that, on the contrary, the Government has somehow decided to exempt ministerial pensions from making any contribution at all to the budgetary adjustments required. That is not the case. The Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 2009 provided that ministerial pensions paid to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament would be reduced by 25%. These reductions were imposed immediately following the passage of the legislation. More importantly, the Act provides that such pensions will not be paid to sitting Members after the next general election or the elections to the European Parliament.

In considering that legislation, the Government looked carefully at the possibility of ending the payment of pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas with immediate effect. That is called for in the motion before the House. Strong advice was received from the Attorney General, which was reiterated this week, against this course of action. His advice was that pensions were earned but deferred income to which the person concerned has a property entitlement. In addition, the Attorney General advised that legislation to abolish in full the pension entitlements of a single group of workers who have clear rights to a properly earned pension would be discriminatory and give rise to legal and constitutional issues. As I indicated yesterday, the advice was that this could amount to disproportionate discrimination.

Why should it be considered disproportionate? There has been no reduction in the PRSI State pension throughout this economic crisis and to date there has been no reduction in any public sector pensions other than pensions paid to Ministers. To stand over, in constitutional terms, the abolition of one entitlement in a context where every other entitlement is preserved at full value is dubious. That is the advice of the Attorney General and it is not an arcane or obscurantist legal argument; it is an argument grounded in the need to maintain a robust legal framework for the economic decisions we must take in the Oireachtas.

The consistent advice from the Attorney General has been that it is open to this House to reduce the value of pensions for pensioners generally or particular classes but he questions strongly whether it is permissible for these Houses to unilaterally expropriate one group to the exclusion of all other groups by way of total abolition of pension entitlement. However the Constitution is reworded and whatever referendum is conducted, it is very difficult to see how, in any comparative jurisprudence, the proposition of targeting a single earned pension for abolition while leaving every other pension alone can be legally or internationally sustainable.

That is the advice we have received as a Government. I have no doubt the Opposition has consulted with lawyers who may have given contrary advice but that is what we have received as a Government and we are bound to act on it. It is responsible and considered advice which is not manufactured for any political purpose. The Government clearly examined this possibility last year and sought advice again when the motion before the House was tabled this week. It has received clear and consistent advice on this topic. No responsible government can act against legal advice of this kind and a responsible government does not have the luxury of ignoring the law and riding rough-shod over people's rights, no matter how popular such action might appear to be in the short term.

The Government did not decide to sit on his hands. We could have indicated the legal obstacles were so great that nothing at all could be done but we took significant action within the law and the Constitution. Although these pensions could not be removed, the Attorney General made clear that they could be reduced in a proportionate way after consultation with the relevant Members. I consulted fully with all the pension holders affected last year and, in the light of the few comments, proposed the legislation to reduce the pensions of sitting members by 25%. That was approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas at that stage.

Numerous Fine Gael Deputies spoke in that debate and were very critical of the extent to which the Government had travelled already in this direction. In the course of a very reflective debate, they objected strongly to the diminution of politics and the capacity of politics to attract people implicit in the measures being proposed by the Government at that stage. The Government also proposed in the legislation to stop payment of these pensions to sitting former Ministers with effect from the next Dáil. This was entirely in accordance with the legal advice. Before the next election, any affected individual will have an opportunity to assess the new position and make a decision in the light of personal circumstances about any alternative pension arrangements to be made.

Looking back at what the Government has actually done with ministerial pensions, I take this opportunity to say that I am very concerned about the nature and tone of the public debate we have witnessed on this issue. I understand and accept that there is concern at a time when economic constraints are very severe but I hope I am not alone in thinking that much of the debate has been distasteful. It has brought a new tone into our public life which I hope does not take root. If it did, it is likely to have wider and very difficult consequences for our political and economic system. In particular, there is a presumption that the political class exclusively is responsible for the current economic crisis and its resolution, and nobody else needs to make any contribution. That idea should not be allowed take root.

It is one thing to debate the rights and wrongs of policy about the economy, the budget, pensions, or any other issue of public importance, but it is another to single out individuals and pursue them until they are forced into a public announcement about giving up income to which they have a clear legal right, and which has already been reduced as part of a wider range of measures to deal with the budgetary crisis. None of us has the right to treat others in this way. As I said yesterday, I am not prepared to coerce people in the way some people have suggested. I find it particularly distasteful when I think about the measures the Government has already taken to reduce pension costs, measures which were very widely accepted by Members of the Oireachtas.

Why am I not prepared to engage in coercion? Perhaps uniquely in this House, I am aware of the personal circumstances of some Members. I accept many Members can freely and voluntarily yield their pensions and I welcome and applaud their decision to do so. In all this, we must remember that a considerable number of former Ministers have already gifted or intend to gift their pensions to the Exchequer. This is very commendable and I want to record the Government's gratitude for these significant and generous contributions. It is also important to remind Dáil Éireann and the public that these gifts were being made privately and without any fanfare before the current controversy began. Many individuals, including serving and former Ministers, wrote to me seeking no acknowledgement and issued no press statement on their pension entitlements.

I make no apology for what the Government has done in this area. The record I have set out shows clearly that we have moved decisively to deal with the economic and budgetary crisis, reduced the cost of running the Government and the Oireachtas and taken entirely reasonable and proportionate measures to reduce ministerial pensions paid to sitting Members. I acknowledge the assistance given by the Fine Gael and Labour parties on the reform of Oireachtas expenses. That was done through the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, whose proposals I approved.

There is no need for the legislative measure proposed in the Private Members' motion. We cannot proceed with such a measure. The Oireachtas has already enacted reasonable and appropriate legislation to deal with the issue of ministerial pensions, which takes full account of the legal facts. There is no need to propose further legislation to continue a debate which is intended to persuade the Government to coerce individuals to give up their pension rights, which have already been curtailed and which will be removed for sitting members in the next Dáil. I commend the amendment to the motion to the House.

See this speech in context