Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

This is one of these old chestnuts that arise when one comes forward with a proposal to deal with the issues. I am focusing very specifically on the pension entitlements of very high earners because this is where the problem lies. Nobody in the world has an issue with public servants who have served their time and who have served their communities and the State being entitled to decent pensions; this is not a matter of controversy at all. As the Minister of State acknowledges, such staff are, for the most part, entitled to very modest pension coverage. The problem is with the upper echelons. The Minister of State said, "Where there is a will, there is an amendment". This is a very good phrase and it is quite correct. I introduced an amendment on the retrospection issue. We debated it and the Minister blew it out of the water on the basis of legal advice that he will not publish.

There is merit associated with caps. A cap was much trumpeted in respect of CEOs of semi-State companies. The figure in question was much greater than €60,000. A figure of €200,000 is referred to in respect of the Civil Service. While one might disagree with caps on the grounds that one must calculate what €200,000 will be worth in a given number of years, one must acknowledge that a cap, because it specifies a definite figure, represents the most effective and transparent approach. Of course, one must factor in what €60,000 will be worth in ten years. There are ways we can address that. The Bill envisages a system of linkage to the consumer price index, and this constitutes one method. There would be solutions if there were a will to accept an initiatives such as the one I propose. However, the Minister of State is not accepting my amendments so I can only draw the conclusion that there is no political will to have the kind of cap I propose. I intend to return to this matter and debate it vigorously with the Government.

See this speech in context