Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The levels of salary and pension applying to certain bankers are outrageous. It is not true to say that we are only reacting now because there is a public outcry. For example, I wrote to the chairman of IBRC some time ago asking him to get his board to impose a 15% pay cut on all staff. I also appointed Mercer last June to examine pay levels right across the banking institutions. I did so precisely because of the outcry. My officials are in regular contact with the banks. The new chief executive of AIB, David Duffy, has taken on board the views expressed and has imposed, by agreement, pay cuts on staff at many levels. He is also proceeding with a large redundancy package. Those who work in banks are not beneficiaries of public service pensions; therefore, laws designed to cut or place levies on public service pensions are not applicable to banks. For residual reasons, everyone is aware, as I am sure the Deputy is, that the Constitution has strong property rights enshrined in it. The legal advice, which has been tested in court, is that a pension is a property right and taking someone’s pension or a disproportionate amount of it away is akin to taking someone’s land or part of it away. That is the difficulty, but I am proceeding on one basis with IBRC and I am proceeding with the other covered banks. I will act when I receive the Mercer report at the end of the year.

What the Deputy is doing in the House is beneficial to my position, because many decent people who have retired from those institutions have seen that the crash has resulted in changed circumstances and are subject to moral persuasion. Week after week, people right across the public service are yielding up parts of their emoluments to the State. I know this because I have to sign the acceptance order when the money is given to the Exchequer. On the initiative of Mr. Duffy, who wrote to all of his high-profile pensioners and asked them to make a contribution, at least one positive reply was received and a significant contribution has been made. I would like the message to go out from this House that such remuneration is not acceptable as far as we are concerned, but it was a different country when the payments were negotiated. Now there are families struggling to survive on very little and it is an obscenity that people who participated in the destruction of the economy are beneficiaries of huge pensions. It is not good enough.

See this speech in context