Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

All of us are familiar with the pattern of what happens here on Wednesday evenings at Private Members' time. If some of the Opposition are not here to frighten the kids of the nation, they are here to frighten senior citizens. This is what we have here tonight. This motion is an exercise to spook people into believing their travel passes are under threat. They are not under threat and the Opposition knows that. Charles Dickens described his father as a "jovial opportunist". In other words, he was like those here who take opportunities such as this to engage in eager opportunism, which is essentially what this debate is. We will be back next Wednesday night and the Opposition will have found some other group of citizens they will try to spook. That is what happens here, despite the promise made three years ago there would be no "Punch and Judy" debating here. That was quickly forgotten.

I never use the term "free travel pass". Nobody has ever explained to me how it could be free. Is it not being paid for? Taxpayers pay for it. I wish people would drop the idea that as part of the services provided by the State it is free. It is not free. Those of us who work pay taxes and those who have paid taxes and are now retired fund it. This is one of the few jurisdictions where this term "free" is used, as if it came out of air or as if the previous empire was sending us a cheque that funded it. That is now how it is.

I listened to some people speak about travel passes being available to all citizens of a particular age. Members are entitled to their opinion, but this is not an opinion I share. I was surprised to hear what some of the Opposition had to say on this. Have we not learned anything? Will any of them argue that a retired politician who left this House three years ago, who is on a pension of €1,000 a week, should have a travel pass? They might support that, but I do not. It is not so long ago since there was a discussion in this House on a retired judge. Retired judges do not come cheap, but this judge had a travel pass. Some Members might agree with that, but I do not understand how they can in the context of services under a welfare state which all of us should be prepared to defend. The welfare state exists to look after those who have the least. Providing travel passes to overpaid retired politicians or judges is wrong and should be stopped.

I commend the Minister on deciding to review the situation. If the principle aim of the review is to deal with these issues, I am all for it. If the Minister comes in and says all retired well paid people should forfeit their travel passes, I will put my finger on the voting buzzer to support that, because these passes should be taken from them. We should not subsidise people who are well off. Another class of people who should not have travel passes are wealthy landlords. I am aware of a landlord who owns 17 properties in this city and who has a travel pass. Will anybody stand up and defend that? I hope not.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to us shutting our eyes to certain issues and we have done so since this scheme was initiated. I support the Government, so I take my share of the blame in that regard. The issue to which he referred was the issue of fraud. Any of us who use public transport will know that if they ask any bus drivers, Luas drivers or drivers of the Expressway service, they will get the truth on this. I commend the Deputy on raising the issue of fraud. It alone is a good enough reason to carry out this review.

We should face up to these issues. I welcome any review of services that come under the heading of the welfare state. We must step up to the plate in terms of services and the provision of services to those with the least. If we are to do that, we must face the problem of the issues I have raised and ensure that people who can well afford to pay for their travel do so, rather than hard pressed taxpayers.

See this speech in context