Jim McDaid (Donegal North East, Independent)

A good friend of mine telephoned me at the end of a turbulent week last week and told me to give up the pension as there were only three of us left and the point had been made. I was told I should not allow myself or my family to be dragged through the mire again. Notwithstanding that advice, I later wondered if we had in politics come to the point where we should not rock the media boat. If we have, it is a very sad reflection of what we have become, the prisoners of political correctness.

The controversy last week posed the question of who exactly runs the country. The answer is clearer now in that it is sections of the media. As a consequence, as one week follows another, we as politicians are becoming more irrelevant. The first caption on the "Six One" news last Tuesday, 27 April - I will not criticise it, as it was factual - was "Bowing To Pressure", as one by one my fellow colleagues from all sides of the House believed they needed to give up. Later in the week, Joe Duffy reminded a caller, "Look, last Friday when we started this discussion there were 22, today there are only four". As if Joe had pulled out his verbal pistol and shot us one by one.

In issuing a statement last week, I understood that I would provoke considerable hatred and controversy. I also understand that such controversy is felt by all Members of the House, in that the actions of individual politicians are frequently laid at the door of all politicians, even when there is no evidence to substantiate such vilification. However, nothing I have stated regarding the remuneration of Members of the House is in any way at odds with the principles of parliamentary democracy. Many on the Opposition benches also had strongly held principled views on this issue. In fact, much of what I have stated goes to the heart of those principles and it is the duty of every Member of this House to uphold them, even when the tide of public opinion would have us do otherwise.

I wish to remind the House of some of the history of the system of parliamentary democracy that we inherited from the British and that we take for granted today. More than 150 years ago in 1838, six Members of the British Parliament, to which Irish MPs were elected and served, led by William Lovett of the London Working Men's Association, formed a committee and published the People's Charter. This document became the basis for the Chartist movement, which ultimately led to the parliamentary reform that gives us the system of parliamentary democracy that we are familiar with today. At the time of the publication of the charter, MPs in the House of Commons were not paid at all, which clearly discriminated in favour of wealthy landowners who were able to pursue active political careers without needing to worry about their livelihoods. Accordingly, of the six demands included in the People's Charter, the fourth was that MPs be paid. The precise wording of this demand was: "Payments of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country".

Much has changed since 1838 and no excuse should be offered for the abuse of the privileges afforded to elected politicians. However, it is still the case that remuneration of public representatives must be set such that the wealthier Members of the House are not able to offer more generous representation to their constituents than Members from more modest backgrounds. If this were the case, the House would undoubtedly be populated by the richest and most powerful members of our society, not citizens from every walk of Irish life, both rich and poor, which is the purpose for which it was intended. It must count among its Members people like the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, who is a solicitor, the Tánaiste, Deputy Coughlan, a social worker, Deputy Kenny, a schoolteacher, Deputy Gilmore, a trade unionist, Deputy Ó Caoláin, a bank official, and Deputy Gormley, a language teacher. It must count among its Members doctors, solicitors, accountants, farmers, engineers, community activists, tradesmen and tradeswomen, women who work in the home, men who work in the home, men and women who cannot find work and men and women of different creeds, colours and political persuasions. In short, this House must represent every part of the Irish nation because if it does not, it can have no legitimacy or purpose.

It is all but impossible to meet this challenge without somehow seeming conceited and arrogant, without provoking the anger of people who do not enjoy the same privileges as Members of this House, without insulting people who are weary of an economic crisis in which they played no part. How can I, as a medical doctor who has earned a healthy salary all my life and enjoyed a Deputy's salary for more than 20 years, possibly claim that I am entitled to a top-up of €22,000 per year because I happened to hold the office of Minister in a previous Dáil? The simply answer is that I cannot. I am not deserving of a ministerial pension, nor do I need it, and if this debate can occur in a calm and rational way and it is the express wish of this House, I will happily forgo it. However, this debate is not occurring in a calm and rational way. It is being driven by a media-fuelled paranoia, where the sole aim is the sale of newspapers and advertising space, not the preservation of democratic principles.

I knew that the reasoning behind my decision would attract vitriol from all quarters, as an angry people whipped into a frenzy by sections of the media were not going to listen to the views of any politician. Angry people make bad decisions. For example, go back to the beginning of Christianity when Pontius Pilate asked "Jesus or Barabus?". Yes, Members of Dáil Éireann are well paid, but not because they work harder, are more qualified or are more deserving than other workers. We are well paid because, believe it or not, we are elected to have legislative powers, powers that affect the lives of every citizen in the State, and because that power is sought by people who do not have the interests of the State at heart. While reducing the income of Members of Dáil Éireann may provide some comfort to other workers who are experiencing economic hardship, I have tried to explain that changes to our remuneration on foot of media commentary can have consequences for the quality of our democracy in the long term.

And so I ask, why just politicians? In any legislation, one must provide that all public sector pensions must be revoked if that "retired" person has found other work within the public sector. There are thousands of them across all disciplines, many of whom work within their own disciplines despite retirement. Surely equality must prevail? Otherwise, do the courts beckon?

What are the principles of those who have created such rage, envy and hysteria? Is it that nobody in receipt of a pension should continue to work? Is it that nobody receiving a pension should be allowed to assist the State again with his or her expertise at a time of our greatest need? Does this also mean that those holding public pensions cannot run for public office? What happens if one was previously in the public service, retired and decided to go into politics?

This brings me to the aforementioned certain sections of the media. We in politics can all accept genuine criticisms. In all of our professions, we have alcoholics, gamblers, corruption, infidelities and so forth. There are no barrels with totally healthy apples. Yet, in over 20 years, I have found that the great majority of people in this House are genuine people of integrity and principle. The majority also come from modest backgrounds. They have husbands, wives, partners, mothers and fathers, children, aunts and uncles, friends and neighbours. The members of the Cabinet, of all Cabinets, are similar. At times, they must make difficult, unpalatable decisions. They arrive at these decisions in the best interest of our people in general, always in the knowledge that one cannot please all of them all of the time.

We are not infallible and do make mistakes. When we do, we should acknowledge them, but none of us is the ogre portrayed by certain sections of the print and audio media with banner headlines designed to ridicule and interviews and statements by politicians deliberately misinterpreted to fill print space, the innuendo deliberately just short of liable. I do not have a broad sheet, a red top or a talk radio programme to counteract their misinterpretations as they falsely claim to represent the weakest members of society while wilfully undermining the very checks and balances that exist to protect the weak from the powerful and those of them who use slogans and headlines to advance their careers without regard for how this might affect our system of parliamentary democracy.

These are the issues with which we must concern ourselves. No Member of this House is immune from the reality of politics in which our lives are intrinsically linked to the vagaries of the ballot box, but there are certain times when we must disavow the ready appeal of populism and be prepared to place ourselves at odds with the people on whom we depend for our mandate. This alone is my concern and the reason I sought, through the provocation of controversy, to have this matter debated in the House.

Let us be clear on the issue. What distinguishes us from the average worker is not what we do, but what we have the power to do, in that the 166 Members of this House and the Members of the Seanad are the only Irish citizens who have the power to legislate. This power is of unparalleled importance, so much so that it is continually sought by people for whom there is no price they will not pay to render that power their own. This is the threat to our democracy of which we must be constantly aware. If we bow to the babble of populism at every turn, we will have failed in our duty to be so aware. The will of the people is not expressed through so called journalists, in opinion polls or on talk radio shows. It is expressed through the secret ballot in free and fair elections. We must place our trust in that system, which, if we protect it, will continue to serve us in the future.

I wish to inform the House that - as some journalists and some people in Donegal are aware - I do not benefit personally from my pension. It has been going to a worthy cause on a quarterly basis for quite some time. I have with me my last six pension cheques which date from three or four months prior to the beginning of this controversy. It should be noted that those who benefit from the money to which I refer do not have a vote. I thank the House for allowing me to outline my position.

See this speech in context