Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Political reform comprises one of the three main issues raised during the general election campaign. It is useful to continue returning to this as a reference point. One reform demanded was an end to the excesses in the political system, including pension entitlements. The excesses extend beyond the political system, of course, and certainly extend into the banking system and to high-income earners in the public service. It is possible to enact legislation to dip into the average worker's pay and impose a pension levy, and it is possible to regard those with private contracts, such as school caretakers, as public servants when the Government wants to impose reductions, although not allowing them to enjoy the advantages of public servants. It is possible to tell those who have a contract with a private landlord and who are in receipt of rent assistance to tell the landlord the contract is not viable and that it must be re-negotiated. We see the upshot of this on a weekly basis; tenants pretty much get their marching orders, often with children in tow. Despite this, it is not possible to deal with wealthy and powerful people who are at the epicentre of all our problems.

I cannot understand why the so-called pillar banks, when they were being recapitalised in the very early days in office of this Government, were not subject to a precondition capping excessive pensions. These pensions were no big surprise. If the taxpayer had not picked up the Bill for the banks, the same banks would have gone to the wall. In such circumstances, the very people who are now being asked to reduce their pensions would possibly be queueing to see the community welfare officer. One must ask why we are being so nice to the people in question. At a time when the working age is being extended, former Ministers are in receipt of huge pensions, in many cases long before they reach the retirement age of 65. Which one of them would institute a court challenge to insist on full payment? Is that the kind of legacy that one of them would want? It is extraordinary that there is an element of pandering and fear in respect of them.

I understood political reform was not to be about box-ticking but about turning the Oireachtas into a strong, functioning parliament. This included strengthening the role of the Parliament in its entirety as opposed to strengthening the hand of the Government. The role of the party Whip needs to be altered radically in a way that allows backbenchers to contribute fully. Instead, we saw the sham of Friday sittings and the replacement of Adjournment debates with Topical Issue debates. This is tokenistic, completely ineffective and costly to the Exchequer.

Let me deal with the issue raised by Deputy Arthur Spring on non-vouched expenses. We have not even scratched the surface when it comes to allowances. It is completely unacceptable that some allowances are not vouched, including the leader's allowance for Independents. Many of us have put this on the record perviously. The Government ruled out of order our amendments to the political funding Bill, stating they were outside the scope of the legislation. Why is this happening? Last year, the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, got €2.18 million as a leader's allowance. Deputy Micheál Martin received €1.2 million as a leader's allowance and the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, received €1.4 million as a leader's allowance. I include those who lost the Whip.

See this speech in context