Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the agreement of the House, I will share time with Deputy Pearse Doherty.

I am pleased to contribute to this debate, given that the issue of pensions in all its guises has loomed large in public debate in the last number of months. The state pension has been threatened, the Government has looted private pension funds, allegedly to fund investment in jobs, although the jobs have not materialised, and the issue of the large pension pots enjoyed by bankers, former politicians and senior civil servants was raised earlier today in the House.

The Government amendment to the motion is galling and bewildering. On what planet does paying oneself €200,000 a year conform with professing leadership and a strong policy of remuneration restraint? Just when we thought the brass necks of Fine Gael and the Labour Party could not shine any brighter they propose a counter motion such as this and dazzle us all the more. Far from being defenders of pay equity, Government Ministers have reduced themselves to giving voice to disgruntled senior civil servants some of whom feel hard done by on their six figure salaries. Last month, at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform told the story of how, at a previous meeting, a senior public servant passed him a note complaining that he was now earning only half of what he had earned in the private sector. Poor him. The Minister's Secretary General rowed in to tell the committee that a salary of a measly €200,000 a year was not the only problem. Apparently, accountability to the Oireachtas was also an issue, and this was something he said "we needed to reflect on".

Far from delivering the democratic revolution, the Government is creating a new kind of elite at the top of the public sector. I have no doubt the irony of this is not lost on citizens. While Labour and Fine Gael Ministers clap themselves on the backs, low and middle income families are worse off under the stewardship of the Government.

Women, in particular, are feeling the brunt of Labour's austerity policies. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has her eyes firmly set on women in her mean-spirited and unnecessary cuts to the State pension. Deputy Burton knows full well that the new requirements she introduced in September for new claimants to State pension hit women hardest. Many of the women affected were forced to leave work because of the marriage bar, as it was called. Many of them cared for children, families and elderly parents, and now they are penalised. Deputy Burton actually described this regressive measure, as she introduced it in September, as fair and equitable. The Government, and Labour in the middle of it, is intent on dismantling every element of progressive social policy that was fought for over the last century.

The motion before us is weak. It does not express sufficiently the support those who feel their pensions are threatened deserve. How can the proponents of the motion make an argument against the standardisation of tax reliefs in respect of pensions? That is, clearly, a fair thing to do. Under the current regime, 80% of pension tax reliefs go to the top 20% of earners. That is not fair. I do not understand why the blanket call to protect those reliefs is being made and I do not share it. Fianna Fáil, as ever, has a nerve to argue for a review of excessive pensions which they designed and delivered.

I hope the Government, in its final response to the motion, will clarify that there will be no further attack on the State pension.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This week, an elderly couple came into my constituency office. One was 80 years of age and the other was 90. One of them was visually impaired. They were distressed because they had received a letter from the Health Service Executive to say their medical card was up for review, even though they were able to show the staff in my office that their card does not expire until 2015. The entitlement they thought they had was being snatched from them by the HSE as a result of the Government's austerity proposals.

That couple are not unique. Many couples and individuals have contacted my office about the same issue. The Government has brought tears to their eyes, as a result of the letters that have been issued in the last number of days. People are fearful of the next letter in the post. What entitlement will they lose and what extra payment will they be asked to make? For many people, such a letter will push them over the edge, financially. If the stress and strain of this was not enough, the same families turn on the television and see bankers and politicians, many of whom were involved in the destruction of the economy, and hear about the lavish pensions and lifestyles they still avail of, despite their hand in bankrupting the State. Mr. Brian Goggin, former chief executive of Bank of Ireland, gets an annual pension of €650,000. Mr. Eugene Sheehy, who is in the media, gets €529,000. I acknowledge that he has accepted a voluntary deduction, but it does not go far enough. Mr. Colm Doherty has a pension entitlement of €300,000 a year and Mr. Michael Fingleton was entitled to a pension pot of €28 million.

The list does not end there. Former Ministers and leaders of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party are in receipt of large pensions, paid by the State.

Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is getting a pension of €152,000, former Tánaiste Dick Spring gets €121,000 and the former leader of Fine Gael, Alan Dukes, claims a ministerial pension of in excess of €94,000 on top of a Government salary of €150,000 as chairman of IBRC.

Even sitting politicians continue to claim pensions. In my own constituency, Fianna Fáil MEP Pat the Cope Gallagher continues to claim his ministerial pension of €70,000 on top of his MEP's salary of €91,000. Many of these people have not even reached retirement age. Many of them are in receipt of substantial incomes from public and private sources yet this Government allows them to be paid obscene pensions while ordinary people, like the couple I referred to at the start, are struggling to make ends meet.

Yesterday during the debate the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, told us that there were legal and constitutional obstacles to clawing back some of these pensions. I challenge the Government here and now to publicly display the advice from the Attorney General that states that. I do not accept the problem is legal or constitutional, it is political. The problem is that the Government does not have the political will to take on the bankers and their excessive pensions because they are up to their necks in it themselves. The politicians had their noses in the trough and reaped the benefits until a number of years ago. How do I know that? We simply have to look at the facts. The Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, only gave up his ministerial pension in 2011. The current Taoiseach only gave up his ministerial pension in 2009 and the Minister for Finance still draws down his ministerial pension, although I acknowledge he has said it goes to charity. The reality is the Government was complicit in the idea of people who are working getting a double payment and availing of massive pensions. The Taoiseach himself for nine years drew down a ministerial pension while he sat in this House before he ever reached retirement age.

This is about political will and having the appetite to go after these people while leaving alone those poor individuals who cannot sleep at night because of the austerity measures this Government has imposed on them. The Government should let them be and go after the people who bankrupted the State and destroyed the economy. Those are the people referred to in this motion and the Government should be ashamed of itself for not having the political will or courage to go after them.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Derek Keating who is sharing time with Deputies Seán Kenny, Olivia Mitchell, Peter Fitzpatrick, Eamonn Maloney and Arthur Spring.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to share time and to speak on this motion. It is a difficult motion and in the short 18 months during which I have been privileged to be a Member of this Dáil, I have spoken on Dáil Private Members' business but seldom have I pondered and reflected so much on the issues at the heart of this motion. That is because of what has been referred to as the unjustifiable, exceptionally overstated and disproportionate pensions earned by some former bank officials and chief executive officers. The Taoiseach has previously referred to the moral responsibility on some of those former chief executive officers with the banking sector who retired with these exceptional pensions. As a Member of the Dáil, I will not stand here and defend those extraordinary pensions. I recall the words of Einstein, who said that example is not the best way to teach others, it is the only way. As an individual Member of the Oireachtas and of the Government, I intend to explore every single avenue to ensure that these people, despite legally binding contractual arrangements, play their full part in our national recovery. That is the overriding commitment of this Government.

In general terms I support much of the intent of the motion except that it is not well drafted. It is not fair and balanced. I would go further and say it is dishonest. It does not take account of the work being done by this Government in a short period of 18 months. It does not take account of the significantly reduced costs of running the Government and public service, including commercial chief executive officers, having their pay reduced and capped. Deputy Mattie McGrath did not mention the fact the Government decided in its first day in office to reduce the pay and pensions of the Taoiseach, Ministers and Ministers of State. A voluntary waiver of up to 15% has been introduced for post holders with salaries in excess of the relevant pay ceilings. Perhaps it was deliberately left out of the motion that public service pay and pensions have been reduced through a public service pension levy of up to 20% at the top rate for pensions in excess of €100,000. Significantly, in the last two years, €2.5 billion has been saved in public service expenditure.

Deputy Mattie McGrath is a survivor of the cabal that put the facilities in place to protect the high earners. I include him with Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowen and others who orchestrated the structures that protect those who are in this situation now. He cannot separate himself from that as the person who penned this motion.

On this issue, I believe the Minister for Finance is legally restricted. That is why we have an Attorney General, to advise the Government. If it did not take that advice, there could be further financial costs to be borne by the people. God knows, there are enough of those already.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Publish the advice in that case.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Government is committed to unravelling and undoing the terms of those contracts that were put in place by the previous Government and I am also committed to that.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to reiterate what the Government has been doing in the area of pensions, tax relief and public service pay, as I believe what the Government is doing in the area is being distorted by the Opposition.

The term "raid on pensions" is a reference to the pension fund levy of 0.6% that applies to the assets of pension funds for the period from 2011 to 2014. The money raised from the levy in 2011 amounted to €463 million, with about €490 million raised in 2012 so far and that money is being used to fund the Government's jobs initiative. The measures introduced as part of the jobs initiative include a new VAT rate of 9% on certain activities, the halving of the lower rate of PRSI and small amounts of additional current and capital expenditure. There is confidence the jobs initiative measures introduced by the Government in May 2011 are playing a role in creating and sustaining employment. Encouragingly, there are signs of stabilisation in labour market conditions and the standardised unemployment rate peeked earlier this year even though it is still far too high.

The Opposition has claimed the Government has threatened to change tax relief. The Government made no such threat. In his Budget Statement for 2012, the Minister for Finance stated he did not propose to do that. A broad consultation was undertaken with various stakeholders in the pension sector this year and that is still underway. The views of these stakeholders will be taken into account in the context of any decisions regarding an incentive regime for pension savings.

The Opposition claims this Government has not acted to address public concern about pay and pension costs. This is not the case and Opposition Deputies know this. Public service pay, as well as that of commercial CEOs in the public sector, has been reduced and capped. The Government, in its first act in office, reduced the salaries of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State with immediate effect. All members of the Cabinet accepted reductions in pay immediately, with the Taoiseach's pay reduced to €200,000 per annum, with pro rata cuts applied to the pay of Ministers and Ministers of State and related office holders. These pay cuts will reduce the pensions paid to Cabinet members in future.

As everyone knows, public service pay has been reduced by 14% on average and considerably more for higher paid public servants through pension related deductions and the pay cuts.

Of course there have been progressive changes to the tax system which at the margin means PAYE, PRSI, universal social charge and pension related deductions such as mandatory pension contributions can amount to more than 60%. This is a mark of a highly progressive overall system. It is only right that those who are better paid should carry the largest burden.

Some individuals, such as those running the banks that are now in State ownership, have chosen to accept reductions in their pensions. This is welcome and I would like to see much more of it. Some people who are legally entitled to these ridiculously large pensions do not deserve them because of the mistakes and failures they made in the past. I call on others to follow the lead of the former CEO of AIB, Mr. Sheehy, and take meaningful pension reductions.

The scale of reduction in the future cost as a result of the new scheme is significant. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has estimated it will reduce costs by up to 30% when the scheme is in full effect in the middle years of the century. I welcome the long-term thinking contained in the scheme. I do not mind coming into this Chamber to engage in debate with the Opposition. However, I object to debating poor quality, spurious motions tabled for the sake of it. The Opposition could do better than this for the sake of a level of debate.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like Deputy Keating I find myself in agreement with some of that. Last week I was gob-smacked to hear the level of pensions being paid to the CEOs in the covered banks. I presume similar pro rata pensions are paid to other senior managers in those banks. It would be very difficult to articulate the incredulity and outrage felt by people when that news was received, particularly by the general working population who have all to some degree suffered erosion of their own pensions and in some cases the complete vaporisation of their pensions. Even if annual pensions of in excess of €500,000 were being paid to bank executives who performed well, behaved prudently, soberly and in line with well-established prudential practice, and maintained statutory reserve and balanced portfolios, I would, and public opinion would, still consider those pensions to be excessive, unnecessarily generous and contrary to the best interests of the shareholders of the banks. Our top bankers were none of these things. They were not successful, prudent or sober. They were reckless, foolhardy and cavalier. Against that background, pensions at that level are nothing short of obscene. It is obvious that at least some of the money was provided by the taxpayers when the State rescued and recapitalised banks these people had destroyed.

What has happened is egregious beyond words. I acknowledge that the CEO of AIB has, following a letter appealing to his better judgment, responded and reduced his pension to a mere €250,000 a year. I wonder to what extent a letter appealing to people's better judgement will be successful given we are dealing with people whose sense of entitlement has survived their ruination of the country, the vaporisation of pensions and the future security of their own shareholders, and the wiping out of the pension pots of ordinary private sector workers who contributed all their working lives to very modest pension funds. We cannot depend on a voluntary response and need to go further and find a way to impose a response.

I urge the Government to look again at the advice of the Attorney General. If we are told contracts cannot be broken, we need to ascertain if there is another way of dealing with this problem. Throughout the country contracts are being broken in businesses that have not been bailed out by the taxpayer. Businesses fail, jobs disappear and pensions disappear. When the contract is gone, as businesses struggle, salary contracts are being broken up. As Deputies and public servants, we know all those contracts relating to our pay, conditions, pensions and increments were broken and thrown away. We did not like it, but we understand when the country is broke and the money is not there, we all need to cut our cloth. What is it about that equation that bankers do not understand? As the banks have failed and gone to the wall, all bets are off as far as I am concerned. Of course, we all must do our best to sustain the pension funds of ordinary rank and file workers in banks. I find it very hard to believe, however, that the taxpayer, in rescuing banks, has any obligation through historical contractual obligations to shore up inflated pensions.

I understand perfectly the argument about property rights, but last year a levy was introduced on all private sector pensions of ordinary hard-pressed workers. There was no talk about property rights at that stage, nor should there be. It was perfectly legitimate to introduce the levy. We did not like it. Nobody liked it, but people recognised, perhaps reluctantly, that if it was going to save some jobs by allowing a reduction in VAT and PRSI, it was worth doing to try to save jobs for young people who have suffered far more from the financial and banking crisis than pensioners have. While it was accepted, it is a step too far to expect people to subvent inflated pensions of bankers and, indeed, of some of those in commercial semi-State bodies. In fairness, the Government has tried to deal with reducing pay and pensions from its first day in office, in particular with the imposition of a 20% levy on pensions of more than €100,000 for public sector workers. However, the notion of pensions linked to the pay of current holders of the same office is unsustainable. I know the new arrangements will change that and while it will not change immediately at least it will kick in when the real demographic burden hits in the middle of this century.

I applaud the Government's many significant reforms and I do not accept that there have been no reforms. The public do not know about many of them, and even if they knew about them, I suspect they would probably believe they do not go far enough. In a country that has been brought to its knees, it is absolutely understandable that there would be great resentment that the public purse should continue to subvent inflated pensions. I again urge the Government to find a way of overcoming the legal or contractual obstacles that seem to be in the way of bringing some sort of equity into the situation.

Peter Fitzpatrick (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Private Members' motion proposed by the Technical Group. I found it quite remarkable that for such a short proposal it took me a long time to read it and even longer to understand it. In my youth in Louth and in particular Dundalk, I never had many occasions to encounter the word "exhortations". Since my youth I have had even fewer occasions to embrace the word. Thus I readily admit that I was thumbing through dictionaries.

A wise old man from Cooley once told me that we learn something new every day, and so I did today when I managed to decipher the meaning of exhortation. It is more than a little ironic that one of the definitions I uncovered referred to exhortation as "language intended to incite". Unfortunately, this Private Members' motion is little more than such. It is a poor and ill-conceived effort at point scoring.

Another aspect of the proposal that alarmed me was the reference to the "decision to raid ordinary citizens' pension funds". I do not know which of my learned Opposition colleagues wrote this but it is exceptionally emotive. The use of words such as "raid" and "ordinary citizens" is unfortunate and is a poor attempt to evoke a response with a populist issue. In the very next line the word "threat" appears, which again is a vague effort at trying to evoke emotions. The proposal in the format submitted and with such unfortunate language leads to issues of credibility and certainty. It is not just hard to read but hard to credit. The tone throughout is lamentable and ultimately pours scorn on the proposal.

I respectfully suggest and even, dare I say it, exhort the Technical Group to reconsider. The scribe who penned the motion has spent more time on the effect than the substance. Perhaps it was intended for release last Wednesday to coincide with Hallowe'en with all its spooks and scary stories. Alarmist and populist sideshows will not fool the people. While I strongly commend the full use of language, I struggle to believe the day will come when I will overhear two mid-Louth spectators in the Grove field in Castlebellingham relaying the story of how they exhorted their team to win.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the referendum is over, I will pay my return visit to the Cooley Mountains after that contribution by the Deputy, and I might meet the man who inspired him.

Like other speakers, I share the sentiment of the motion. However, as stated by Deputy McDonald sentiment is one thing and substance is another. The motion does not quantify what people want to say about those in receipt of large pensions and lump sums. Without quantifying this, it is meaningless. It is a little like attaching the argument which has been made by various Members on both sides of the House, including from the Labour Party, that people on salaries in excess of €100,000 should be paying more tax, with which I disagree. The man and woman in the street can see through politicians' calls for an increase in the level of taxation which does not kick in at the base on which they are on. No one has put forward the proposal that we should start with politicians' salaries, which are two and a half times the industrial wage. People in receipt of jobseeker's allowance of €12,000 per annum can see through a proposal which provides that people earning in excess of €100,000 should be paying more because they see through politicians.

Most Members of this House agree that the people in receipt of excessive pensions need to be reigned in. The word "immoral" has been used in relation to pensions by some people. However, that is not the language I prefer to use. There is no justification for any man or woman, be he or she a banker, bishop or politician, to be in receipt of a pension of €8,000 per week. That cannot be justified. The bankers are employed by us, not as legislators but as taxpayers, and they are accountable to us. No one should be in receipt of pensions of €500,000 or €600,000 and so on.

We live in an extraordinary country. When attempts are made to address issues such as property rights or upward only rents, it is stated that those involved are protected by the Constitution. This Saturday, we will vote in a referendum to protect the rights of children because the Constitution has not done so to date. Members on all sides of the House agree that these people should not be in receipt of large pensions and lump sums. It is extraordinary that these people are also protected by the Constitution. It is some Constitution given it does not do much for the ordinary man and woman. As stated by another speaker, the rich get all the pleasure. In the case of our Constitution not only do they get the pleasure, they get the protection. I do not believe, as some people have suggested, that they will go to court. Let them go to court. If they want to go to the High Court and take on us as taxpayers, let it happen.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I doubt if they will get down the Quays to present their case because it would infuriate people. If these people want to continue to take their pensions then it is up to people like us to stand up to them.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I almost burst out laughing yesterday morning when I heard that the banks had written to the people concerned and asked them to consider taking a reduction in their pensions. That is akin to being in the ocean and smiling at a shark when one knows he is going to eat you. Writing to these people and asking them kindly to take a reduced pension is a farce. They are not going to do it. There is only one way to address this. We cannot afford to pay them and should not pay them.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is clear that some of the signatories to this Private Members' motion have brought it forward with the best of intentions. I do not doubt their sincerity. We have an issue with pensions. I share the sentiments of colleagues in the Labour Party that we need to get this right. Our colleagues in the Technical Group have had plenty of time to mull over this and should have done better.

The Fianna Fáil brigade is engaging in an episode of collective amnesia, eager to wash their hands of any culpability for the economic mess in which we find ourselves. Their false outrage at a system which they were happy to maintain in the Celtic tiger era rings hollow. Bertie's cheerleaders and boy band are now using this democratic forum for grandstanding. Let us get to the crux of the motion, which is about kicking a political football up and down this Chamber rather than making things better. Many of the people who signed this motion are here under better terms and conditions of employment than I. Many of them will receive better pensions than I will and many have jobs to return to should they lose their seat in a future election. Those looking for fairness must be prepared to ensure fairness for all.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

About whom is the Deputy speaking?

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are all over the place and way off the mark in terms of coming in here to have a go at Government.

As regards the payment of various allowances etc., what are those in receipt of the Leader's allowance of €40,000 per annum doing with it? I have yet to see one poster erected by any of the signatories to this motion which indicates they will vote "Yes" in the children's referendum. I have not yet heard any explanation for how they spend that allowance.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should read the book.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All allowances which the Labour Party receives are audited and spent on political campaigns and the betterment and development of the country.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Technical Group is way off the mark. Its members take home twice as much money as the rest of us and need to account for it.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Spring must address his remarks through the Chair.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People want leaders to lead and want politicians to make decisions. It is important we focus on addressing the mess in which we find ourselves and stop kicking the football around. The Irish people will forgive decisions but they will not forgive a mess being kicked around with no purpose. The people know there is no fantasy government under which everything will be better. They have Sinn Féin for that, a party the people gave only a small number of votes in the last election. People will not thank us for playing politics with their lives.

The following is a solution that we should explore. My anger is directed towards bankers who have retired on enormous pensions. Deputy Maloney is correct that the people would not allow cases to be taken to court. Perhaps we should examine this issue in the context of the Director of Corporate Enforcement list of indictable offences. As regards the bank guarantee, the Companies Act 1963 section 24(7)(vii) refers to a person who provides incorrect, false or misleading information in a statutory declaration under subsection (1). If on the night the bank guarantee was signed off on, when people were tickling the belly of former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, the issue was one of liquidity or capitalisation of the banks and the Minister and head of the Department of Finance were misled on that night then the directors of the banks should be found culpable and negligent in terms of what they have done to this country. Nobody should be paid for bankrupting a bank. Were we not propping them up, the banks would not exist and the pensions of those involved would be lost.

This matter could also be examined in the context of the Consumer Protection Act and Financial Regulations Act. When it comes to ministerial pensions and so on, some Members of this House are here under different terms to those enjoyed by others. Some Members take home more money than others. Let us have some accountability from people in regard to the amount of money they are taking home. Many of us support a vouched expenses scheme. Let us see some more vouched expenses from the other side of the House.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We tried to have that changed.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us have some "Yes" campaign in respect of the referendum next Saturday.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Joan Collins whom I understand is sharing time with Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace, Catherine Murphy, John Halligan and Róisín Shortall. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This motion, which many have derided, has drawn very energetic responses from many Labour and Fine Gael backbenchers. The motion highlights that ordinary people have had enough, which I am sure Government backbenchers are made aware of every day of the week. Some 10% of families in this country cannot put a decent meal on the table.

Soup kitchens are opening in Galway and Athlone and there is demand for more of this type of service. People see these bankers and politicians receiving exorbitant pensions and they are very angry and want to see change. The Government is feeling this pressure also, which is why the motion is good as it will get a debate going in the Chamber. It is an insult to the people of the country that Eugene Sheehy voluntarily cut his pension by 20%. It means nothing. He will still come out with €250,000 a year. It is equivalent to 20 years' worth of the State pension of approximately €12,000 a year. He should return everything he got and ask the Irish people for forgiveness. He should be in receipt of the State old age pension only.

Two other architects of this disaster, former taoisigh Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen, have pensions 12 times the amount of the State old age pension. Why do they consider they are worth €3,000 a week while other pensioners try to live on €230 a week? A total of 30 former Ministers are in receipt of more than €100,000. Most of them are under 65 years of age and most are in other well-paid jobs. The Government should end the excuses it makes day in and day out in the Dáil. The maximum pay in any new public sector contract should be €100,000 with pensions at €50,000. The Government has an opportunity to come to the Dáil to ask Deputies to take a reduction in their wages. I would vote for such a measure. One can vote to change one's conditions although it cannot be imposed on one, and people in the Chamber know this damn well.

If we were serious about leading by example, we would put forward proposals to reduce wages across the board. Pensions should be capped at €50,000 to €60,000, and even this is very generous. An income of €100,000 is three times the average wage and is more than enough for people to live on. Deputies and Ministers should take less. A pension of €50,000 is four times the amount of the State pension and society should debate whether it would be adequate. It is very generous.

The contractual problem that keeps being raised can be dealt with through taxation. We know this can be done. It was done to ordinary workers through the universal social charge and the pension levy. It can also be done to these existing contracts. A tax, levy or supertax on the super wages and super pensions can be introduced very quickly. It would not require going to court or to have thousands of people on the streets. The Government's reluctance can be compared to the cuts of €45 million in pension entitlements in the budget for 2012. From September, new claimants dependent on yearly PRSI payments could experience a cut of €30 a week, which is a very significant cut to a pension of €230 a week. We know many of those affected are women.

The IMF suggests pensioners are too well off and we heard the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, saying this also. It is said they have not been hit by austerity. They have experienced cuts in home help. An elderly woman told me her uncle who is 90 depends on three hours of home help but this has been cut by another hour. This morning, the Taoiseach said all of the problems should be sent to him. If this happened, he would be inundated and his e-mail would not be able to deal with the number of representations that would be made. Old-age pensioners have also experienced cuts to the fuel allowance and home care packages. Suggestions are now being made about cuts to travel, electricity and telephone allowances and increases in taxes. I signed the motion because I agree with the thrust of it. It should be debated in the Dáil, and the other side of the House should have a genuine approach to dealing with the issue.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing sums up the tail of the two Irelands in which we live more than the issue of pension provisions and the double standards which prevail. Many of the Deputies have highlighted very well the absolute obscenity of the gilt-edged pensions paid to bankers and politicians, the very people responsible for the economic crisis in the first place, and those elderly vulnerable citizens being asked to carry the can for this mismanagement with the undermining of the State pension and the virtual erosion of many of the private pension schemes which are leaving many workers exposed.

It is sickening to listen to the whimpering of Labour Party backbenchers, whose points would be hilarious if it were not for the fact that they are in government and responsible for dealing with the current situation. It is absolute waffle to say nothing can be done. It is absolutely not the case. Hiding behind contractual obligations is not good enough. Asking them to hand back the money is not good enough. A Labour Party Deputy complimented Eugene Sheehy on the meaningful contribution he made by handing back a portion of his pension. Is this what the Labour Party has been reduced to? It is a joke.

Bertie Ahern once came in here and moved a piece of legislation to benefit one individual in a tax avoidance scam. If it can be done this way, it can be done the other. Legislation can be introduced. If the Government feels it must give them the money in one hand, then take it back with the other through 100% taxation or a 100% levy. Let them live on the State pension like everybody else. There is no place for any excuse on this, but the Government is not prepared to tackle it.

The Government has no problem whatsoever engaging in erosion and sneaky actions such as last year's budget which changed the rules on PRSI contributions and left women workers in the main, who took time out of the workforce to raise their families, worse off by €1,500 per annum. This sounds like a pittance when we hear the amounts hundreds of thousands of euro bandied around when discussing pensions, but it is an annual heating bill or the difference between food and a decent standard of living. To be honest, the process of attacking the gains of the welfare state in the name of austerity which the Labour Party has gone along with so well is an absolute insult.

Behind this issue is the overall crisis in pension provision globally. It is not only in Ireland. One of the excuses thrown up is that people are living longer and we have to be able to deal with this. The solution is supposedly to make people work longer. What an absolute indictment of capitalism. We have a system where because of benefits in science and improved health, people have the opportunity to live a longer and healthier life but this is a problem. Our solution is to make them work until they go into the grave. Meanwhile, their children and young people are on dole queues throughout Europe and cannot get a job. It is the wrong way around. For people to be able to retire with dignity requires pension provision and money. It is not good enough to say we do not have the resources for this when the European economies are sitting on more wealth now than they ever had in any other period. The difference now is that this wealth is more unequally divided.

The trade union movement which is affiliated to the Labour Party fought long and hard for the welfare state and for the right of people to retire with dignity. It is now in office when private pension schemes are being eroded. We saw the debacle a number of years ago when SRT Technics and Waterford Glass workers, who spent decades paying into private pension schemes, ended up with nothing because no pension protection schemes were in place. I worked in Aer Lingus and we will not get back our contributions into the scheme, not to mind the company's contribution. Pensions are profited from and mismanaged and the Government needs to deal with this.

We need to look at this the other way around or upside down. Tens of billions of euro in pension funds are invested outside the State. The Government should creatively use the relief to invest this money in Ireland in a public works programme to put people to work and sustain pensionable jobs in future. It is the only way out of the situation.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It must be difficult for people to look at their own situation while reading what is in the newspapers and seeing what is on television. It is very difficult to stand over the position here and worse again the position with regard to the banks. I believe Deputies are paid too much.

A Member referred to the leaders' allowance. If the Government proposes to create a level playing field such that none of us would get it, I will vote for it. Thus, we will all be on the same level.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about vouched expenses?

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not have a problem whatsoever with vouching. If the Government introduces legislation to introduce vouching, I will vote for it. If there is legislation to do away with the allowance completely for all parties and Independents, I will vote for that also.

It must be very difficult for the people to accept the golden handshake given to people leaving this Chamber. Everyone has mentioned the size of pensions. It is frightening to believe that some are receiving €150,000 when others are trying to live on €15,000 or €16,000. The lack of fairness is difficult for people to take. People are angry that the recession has gone on for so long and over youth unemployment. They are also very angry about the excesses of the bankers. What annoys them most is inequality. This is the most soul-destroying phenomenon of all. Inequality is increasing and there are many reasons therefor. In 1980, the average chief executive in the developed world made 40 times an industrial worker's wage. In 2011, the average chief executive made 325 times that wage. This is a serious problem and it is replicated right across the board. I do not understand how the system can sustain this neoliberal philosophy in the longer term.

With regard to pensions, I read the contribution to this debate of the Minister of Strate, Deputy Hayes yesterday evening. He said pensions are deferred income and property rights. In the private sector, most pensions are deferred income and it is easy to argue they are property rights. However, in the banking industry and the public service, where there are defined benefit schemes rather than defined contribution schemes, there is not the same argument regarding property rights. Whether we like it or not, the banks that have been bailed out by Government effectively employ public servants. The banking industry is not in the private sector because the banks are standing on their feet today because of the taxpayer. Therefore, the staff are public servants and there should be far more control over their decisions. The Government should tell them what to do, not the opposite. Who is wagging the tail? There was a time when banks worked for the people but it is now the people who are working for the banks. This is the wrong way around.

It is ridiculous to ask people to take reductions in their pensions, something that has been referred to as moral persuasion. I would like to see legal persuasion rather than moral persuasion. There needs to be much more direct action on the part of the State to reign in those responsible for the terrible abuses in the pensions and banking industry.

I accept Deputy Spring's point in that I have no problem with our looking at ourselves first. It is time that we gave ourselves less money. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, in answer to a question to Deputy Terence Flanagan some time ago, stated it is important to point out that legal advice from the Attorney General stipulates it is possible to apply proportionate reductions to existing pensions but that account must be taken of the fact that pension benefits are considered to be property rights, which limits the action that can be taken. Members of the Oireachtas, including Ministers, have not been insulated from the financial crisis that has affected and continues to affect all sectors of the economy, according to the Minister. To say we are not insulated in this House is disingenuous because we are. We need to take a serious look at ourselves.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

His party.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. The sum does not include the €5 million that goes to the political parties-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputies all had their chance.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and the 78 staff-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The speaker should be allowed to continue.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not include the €5 million that goes to the political parties, and which was not reduced by 17% when 17% of first preferences did not go to political parties. It does not include the 78 staff to run the Oireachtas. Let us, therefore, have an honest debate about this. Most, if not all, members of the Technical Group, including me, and the Independents have no difficulty with vouching.

All expenditure of public moneys should be vouched - I cannot put it any clearer than that. There must be leadership on this issue. If the Government intends to go back to the well and seek further sacrifices from the public, then we in this House must be seen to be doing the same ourselves. That is the thrust of what we are arguing for in this motion.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues for sharing time. Pension reform is an issue that has been dodged by several Administrations. Unfortunately, this Government has, thus far, done the same.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should have stuck around.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The system of pension tax reliefs is undoubtedly the most regressive aspect of our tax system because it disproportionately benefits the much better-off. The more one can afford to put by - indeed, the more one's employer or company can afford to put by - the greater the subsidy one receives from other taxpayers, who may not be able to afford a pension for themselves. The present system entails a significant transfer of funds from low and middle-income earners to the better-off. In effect, it is a form of corporate welfare and, as such, is a scandal that must be tackled. There is a paucity of detailed data on pensions in this country, perhaps conveniently so. What we have here is a lack of transparency as to where a very large proportion of the tax take is going. There is an onus on the Revenue Commissioners to tackle that issue.

We do know that the spend on pension relief is some €2.5 billion per annum, which is approximately the same as child benefit. Unlike child benefit, however, which goes to every child in the country, the ESRI has estimated that some 80% of tax relief goes to 20% of earners. The pension system should be about encouraging people to save during their working life so they can enjoy their retirement in some degree of comfort and free from the concerns of poverty. It should not, as it currently is, be a vehicle for tax avoidance. All taxpayers should be treated equally. We can achieve these objectives while also making very significant savings of at least €500 million if there is the political will to do so.

Unfortunately, the Government did not target savings in the pension area in the last budget. There is no excuse for doing the same this year. There must be equity between all public and private sector workers. It is time to reduce significantly the annual cap on the amount of pension contributions for which tax relief can be claimed. This cap must include employer and company contributions as well as employee contributions. There can be no justification whatsoever for subsidising pensions above approximately €50,000 per annum. It is far preferable to opt for a cap, as was done in the United Kingdom in recent years, than to standard-rate relief. Standard rating would remove the incentive to save for people of modest incomes of €33,000 or so. It would also lead to a significant reduction in take-home pay for workers in this category.

There is no justification for the provision of tax-free lump sums of €200,000. That figure should be reduced by at least €50,000. The current maximum pension fund of €2.3 million is completely excessive and there can be no moral or economic rationale for it. There is no justification for subsidising pensions above the level of approximately €1.5 million. It is a cop-out to say that a cap cannot be applied retrospectively. It is an affront to most decent people that there are individuals who have disgraced this country - leading lights of politics, business and banking - with pension pots in the region of €30 million or €40 million. There is an onus on everybody in this House to ensure this scandalous situation is tackled. A failure to do so will mean that none of us will have any moral authority when it comes to making savings in any other area. Unless the Government takes serious action in this regard in the coming budget, it has no moral authority to continue to govern.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A decade ago, the notion of limiting Irish citizens' access to pensions would have been declared a sacrilege. Today, the pension funds of ordinary Irish people have become fair game while the Government is attempting to work certain categories of employees until they drop by progressively raising the age of eligibility for the State pension. If the Government wishes to lead this country with any level of credibility and compassion, it cannot keep ignoring this issue. It is forcing men and women who work in labouring jobs, on small farms and in factories and hotels to work until they drop. That shows a total lack of compassion which will come back to haunt the Government in the coming years.

Members opposite can spin it any way they like but the bottom line is that the pay, expenses, allowances and severance packages - the golden handshakes - awarded to politicians and senior civil servants in this State are an absolute disgrace. They were scandalous when the country was doing well; in the current economic climate they are completely inexcusable. There has been ranting and raving from some on the benches opposite about allowances for Independent Members. If the Government comes forward with a proposal to abolish all allowances, we will support it. I challenge the Government to do so in the forthcoming budget, to do away with the €4 million and €6 million to which the parties are entitled. We are more than ready to call the Government's bluff on this matter. Members opposite are smiling away, but there is no prospect that this will actually be done. They should stop berating Independent Members for the lousy €3,000 they might receive every month, while they are running around with millions of euro every year. All of these payments should be abolished or, at the very least, vouched. Otherwise the Government should shut up about the allowance for Independent Members.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since when is €3,000 "lousy"?

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The parties opposite get millions every year. All payments should be vouched or they should be abolished. There is an opportunity to do that in the budget next month, but it will not be done.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has described a payment of €3,000 per month as "lousy".

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will not be done because the Government parties would lose millions. That is enough of that.

The RTE documentary "Too Broke to Retire", broadcast last Monday, made for highly discomforting viewing for everybody in this House. How can we as public representatives stand by these exorbitant pay-outs while so many pensioners who worked hard of all their lives in anticipation of a comfortable retirement are struggling to make ends meet as they face into the hardship of further cutbacks in the coming budget? The programme included interviews with former Waterford Crystal workers who paid into pension funds for 30 or 40 years and have nothing to show for it. Many of them are already facing a pension age gap because of the increase in the age of eligibility for the State pension, a change which Age Action Ireland estimates could result in an annual income deduction of up to €1,5000 for some people for the rest of their lives. There is no compassion from the Government for those affected, no compassion for workers who gave 30 or 40 years of their life only to be left with nothing. That is inexcusable, unacceptable and disgraceful.

In the face of such injustice, it is simply wrong that we continue to bleed the public purse so that former Ministers can receive multiple pensions. These pensions are completely unrelated to age or even time in office, an arrangement which would not be permitted in any other country. This injustice is compounded by the fact that the ministerial pension scheme does not involve any deductions from salary.

What has happened to Ministers of former Governments, including some Labour Party members, would not be acceptable in any other country. Protecting the pensions of public servants, regardless of income, means that spending cuts are falling on the weakest members of society. That is exactly what the Government is doing.

The rise in the qualifying age for the State pension will hit hardest those working in the private sector. They will be totally reliant on social welfare payments in the pension. As it is, the pension funds on which private pensions depend have been badly hit. With the economic cost of public sector pensions rising, they are beginning to exceed 100% of all income taxes collected from the private sector.

We are told the Government is unable to do anything about people with large pensions and those who walked off with big handshakes. The Taoiseach mentioned that today and he spoke about self-regulation. We are able to do it to workers by introducing the universal social charge. Nobody in the country believes the Government cannot bring in legislation to remove some of the payments and pensions being made to former politicians. While I am not blaming this Government, it should not tell the people it cannot do this, because it can.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to what is a very important debate. Pensions are an important public policy issue, and it is useful and important that we debate them frankly, openly and honestly in this House.

There are misconceptions or worse about public service pensions in particular and the steps the Government has been taking to limit the cost of such pensions to the taxpayer. The first misconception is that public service pensioners are all on massive pensions. The truth is that about 1% of public service pensioners are in receipt of a pension in excess of €60,000 and only a few hundred have a pension in excess of €100,000. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, indicated what constituted that category of people. In fact, about one third of Civil

Service pensioners have a pension of €10,000 a year or less, while around half have a pension of €20,000 a year or less.

The second misconception is that public service pensioners - former teachers, nurses and civil servants - represent an unaffordable burden. I have heard that repeatedly. The 2009 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General is often used to make this point as it estimated an overall public service pension liability of €116 billion. This figure must be properly understood. It is an actuarial assessment of accrued pension liabilities for existing staff which will be paid over many years. Above all, it must be stressed that this 2009 estimate assumed that there would be a real increase in public service pay over the long term. It is quite clear that a very different assumption would have to be made if the assessment were carried out today. The estimate also made assumptions about the indexation of pensions which need to be re-examined. The actuarial exercise indexed pensions to pay. If this was not done and it was assumed that pensions would instead track the consumer price index over the long term, the figure could fall to about €80 billion. In light of these and other considerations, I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General is re-doing this exercise. I am sure a very different picture will emerge, especially when account is taken of the new single public service pension scheme for new entrants which I introduced, and this House voted on, this year.

The third misconception is that public servants are not paying for their pensions. I have heard some echoes of that since coming to the House tonight. The position is that significant contributions are paid, generally 5% for main scheme benefits and 1.5% for spouses' and children's benefits for all staff in place since 1995. In addition, as we all know, public servants pay a pension related deduction, or PRD, which saves some €950 million annually. If the PRD is taken together with the pension contributions, current public servants make a significant input of well over 50% of today's annual public service pension outflow, which itself amounts to €2.9 billion. Therefore, on average, there is a pension related deduction of 7%. Ministers pay 10.5% at the marginal rate as a contribution their pensions.

A further misconception is that public service pensioners have not taken a cut to their pensions and that only private sector pensioners have seen reductions. The fact is that public service pensioners have had their pensions cut. Unlike many private sector pensioners, public service pensioners have been subject to the financial emergency measures legislation which imposed significant reductions of up to 12% on public service pensions in payment.

On assuming office last year, and arising from my concern about large public service pensions, some of which have been rightly referred to by Members in the debates, I amended the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation to levy a reduction of 20% on pensions in excess of €100,000, and this levy is on top of all other taxes and reductions. That was the advice I received from the Attorney General. That is as far as I could go.

The next misconception is that higher paid public servants and public service pensioners have been unduly protected. Pay cuts, including those made by this Government, operate progressively, with higher earners taking the largest cut, which means reductions in pensions will also be progressive. While the average reduction arising from the pay reductions will be around 7%, this extends to nearly 20% for the highest earners, of whom officerholders are clearly one part. For those pensioners in receipt of pensions calculated before the pay reductions, the public service pension reduction applies a progressive reduction, with rates of up to 20% for those with the highest pensions.

The new Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and other Provisions) Act 2012 will calculate future pensions on the basis of career average earnings, not final pay. This, too, will have a progressive impact, protecting pensions for lower paid workers and flattening pensions for those at the upper echelons.

The final misconception I want to deal with is the idea that here in the Oireachtas we have a general or unfettered power to pass laws that would effectively confiscate property. I have just heard that said again. Despite the rhetoric, we in this House understand full well that the Oireachtas legislates within the Constitution and that legal issues concerning property rights are important. Reflecting constitutional rights and general public policy, the financial emergency measures Acts reduce public service expenditure in a proportionate and progressive way. The preambles to the FEMPI legislation clearly establish the measures in the context of the emergency financial measures currently pertaining in this country. There are also significant safeguards built into each statute, including an annual review and report, which must be laid before the Oireachtas in June of each year, as well as provision for me as Minister to examine cases for full or partial exemption if considered fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

It is broadly accepted that further public service pension cuts could only be justified in the broad public interest. They would, therefore, have to make a meaningful contribution to the fiscal adjustment and would likely have to be designed in a similar fashion to the existing reduction. In other words, one cannot focus constitutionally on one category of people for exemplary treatment.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the disability carers?

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to finish.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will explain it again. Pensions are a preserved property right under the Constitution. That is the legal advice. Deputies can go and get independent advice if they wish. If they want a constitutional amendment, let us consider that.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us be honest, however, about what can be done in all the circumstances. Members opposite spoke about allowances and other matters which are well beyond the scope of this debate. I am very eager to hear that debate. If any Members of the Opposition feel they should not be in receipt of an allowance, there is a complete availability - and I will accept it immediately - of a return or denial of that allowance.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would take us back years.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no difficulty with that. Some colleagues have done that. If Deputies want to preach that, it is available to people. In the context of the budget, I will be taking careful account of everything that is said here. I am determined that the difficult budget to be placed before this House in the first week of December will be fair and proportionate. I must remind people that in 18 months we have unwound decades of activities, some of which were strongly supported by Deputies who have since changed their opinion.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply but I am afraid that, while there is nothing in it which is inaccurate or in error, it does not address the main kernel of the motion. The purpose of this motion was deliberately and calculatedly to look at the advantages, pensions and lump sums that people at the very top, including ourselves, receive from the State.

I make this point in the context of the back and forth attacks that have taken place but it also was meant deliberately to draw attention to Members and to debate these matters in an honest and serious way. The motion included Deputies and Senators and what they receive in this debate because it is only right, as Deputy Shortall so eloquently noted, that Members somehow have the moral authority to dictate or to tell other people how their pensions should be allocated, administered and given, if Members of this House of all sides, including people present, are perceived as doing an honest and fair job, as well as receiving equitable pensions.

This motion certainly brings Members under pressure as they are not whiter than white or particularly flawless in this regard. On this side of the House, Members receive a very generous leader's allowance and they accept that. However, they believe it is only right that this matter should be brought into the public arena, examined and debated by Members and then be exposed to the public as having been rightly examined and allocated.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem with debating that particular subject in this House is that Members are judges in their own case. The people perceive the Dáil, the Seanad, Ministers, ex-Ministers, Deputies and Senators to be deciding that their own pay should be decided in this House. Even if they are not deciding precisely what is their own pay, they, including the Minister, possibly are deciding what their pay will be in some years to come.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was set by an independent board, as the Deputy is well aware.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That is perceived to be wrong. I suggest that perhaps there are ways out of this. As Opposition Members always are accused of not making constructive suggestions, I wish to so do. Why not take it out of this House completely and utterly in order that all these matters-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pay was set by an independent pay body.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should wait for one minute. He should stop interrupting for a minute.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An independent pay body.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the former Deputy McDowell said to the Minister on a television programme recently, his great forte is interrupting.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, please. Deputy Ross without interruption.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy not aware of it?

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the Minister's only great forte.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, please.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Minister mind not interrupting me?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Deputy not learn?

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the Minister's great forte and he should keep going.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was set by an independent commissioner.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow the Minister the floor if he wants.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, please. The Government Deputies all got their own chance in this regard.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Deputy is allowed the same time. Please allow him to address the House.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With facts.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. I suggest that ordinary citizens be brought into this process. Those people who give Members the moral authority to rule in this House and make decisions of that nature should be brought into the process in the way they are brought into a jury system. They could then decide what Members are worth and specify the amount they would give to Members. I neither suggest nor accept that Members should have the great and the good judging them and their wages because they are all in the loop. For example, judges are paid far too much and are in receipt of very good pensions as well.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was the reason for the referendum.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not suggest the setting up of an independent body full of political appointees. Instead, 12 ordinary citizens, men and women should be chosen. The Minister should not laugh because that is the way in which juries are set up.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is lowest common denominator politics.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Such a body should decide how this should be done because it is most important that the moral authority of this House be preserved and respected. However, the moral authority of this House is not accepted at present because Members are perceived to be behaving in a particular manner and to be accepting the sort of wages, salaries and pensions they also allow bankers to have. How can Members' moral authority be accepted when they allow bankers to take salaries of €500,000 or €600,000 per year and state there is nothing they can do about it? Moreover, while Members were permitting such pensions, they were allocating similarly-inflated pensions to themselves. The public cannot accept this. There is nothing special about a Deputy. There is nothing particularly meritorious about the work Members are doing. However, there is a perception that Members are feathering their own nests. It is as much the Minister's responsibility as it is that of Members to spike this perception. I ask the Minister not to interrupt or to destroy ideas of this sort. He should not set up a body of quangos to revert with a similar position. I ask the Minister to treat all Members equally. I ask him to propose that expenses be vouched but that this should be done for everyone. He should reduce expenses but should do so for everyone.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, he should not allocate large lump sums to retiring Deputies and Ministers, which they do not deserve and which they have done absolutely nothing to merit. While Opposition Members are accused of being populist, on this subject the public is absolutely correct.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance. In my concluding remarks, I wish to thank all Members on all sides of the House who spoke honestly and passionately, certainly the vast majority of them did so, as well as the members of the Technical Group who supported my motion.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to put on record that I am an ex-Fianna Fáil Deputy. I was in Fianna Fáil for all of my life, between the age of 16 when I joined until approximately two and a half years ago. I was in Fianna Fáil and I voted for the bank guarantee. I was called into this Chamber quite late at night and was told we had to vote for this measure or Europe would collapse. I certainly admit I would not do it again. I am open to learning and I put together this motion without help from anyone. I hated having Members refer to the motion this evening as being dishonest, spurious or of poor quality. Perhaps it was but it was the best of my humble effort. Moreover, it was short because it did not allow room for lengthy amendments. It was a three-line motion because, as the previous speaker stated, the public is incensed. Moreover, they are twice as incensed now because of the mess we are in and the unfortunate situation in which they find themselves, be they unemployed, disabled, carers, small-business people, small farmers or whatever. I include public servants, who do a tremendous job, hundreds and thousands of them all through the public service, both indoor and outdoor, and I am not trying to attack such people. I am not trying to be populist but have learnt a little bit.

I may have been hoodwinked for many years but those Members who attacked me from the other side of the House should know that for the four years I was in the parliamentary party, I railed against the situation. If they wished to check, they would find that on the record. I came into this Chamber and spoke against what was going on. I was the one man who fought with the late Deputy Brian Lenihan when he reversed the pension levy on senior public servants. It was a most distasteful thing to do and he had been told that the coterie of civil servants involved was 117 strong. However, I tabled notice of a motion and when the matter was investigated, it is on the record that he thanked me for so doing because when he went to check, the true figure was 860. It was a trick of the loop job. While I hate to use the word "lies", what was done to that Minister at that time was untrue. I also voted in this House to cut the pensions in the budget after discussing the matter at length with many of my backbench colleagues in Fianna Fáil. We were young first-time or second-time Deputies and we voted. On the morning of the budget, we were told by the late Deputy Brian Lenihan that the pensions were being cut. We voted for the measure but then found out subsequently that it protected the elite who had been in this House for ten years or more. They took up the ladder and left all the lads below at the bottom. Deputy Spring mentioned how some people in this House are in receipt of better pay and conditions than he is and they are. Moreover, it is the same in my case. While I do not begrudge it, I merely am stating the game is up.

The Minister opposite, as well as Members from the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party should note how they got into this House. The party of which I was a member - they can accuse me of jumping ship or whatever but I could take no more - was dealt with severely by the public. The Government Members should note of the number of Fianna Fáil Members present because people are sick of what went on, namely, the shenanigans, the entire situation in respect of the banking crisis, the former Taoiseach, Mr. Cowen, golfing with so-and-so from Anglo-Irish Bank and all the rest. The public are sick of the shenanigans and the games. The Minister and the Government parties came into office on a platform of transparency, openness and honesty. However, this is not what people got. I recognise the Minister and all his colleagues have made efforts - I am not here to score political points - but the people have not got what they want. They have not got what they voted for because the incoming Government accepted austerity. It then heaped on more austerity and now intends to do so again, on ordinary people who are in penury and cannot pay. The troika cannot see this. Incidentally, I have met the troika thrice as a member of the Technical Group. Were I still a party member, I would never have met them, as backbenchers simply come in to vote and to do what they are told. They obey the Whip system, which is a charade. My point is all Members know that more cannot be taken.

As for the motion not being well-timed, I waited to table it for 15 months. The Technical Group is allocated time for one motion per month and I decided to table this motion. I waited to do so because I was so sick and incensed by it. I do not suggest I am whiter than white or Smokey Joe or whatever. I have no comfortable job to go back to if I lose out here. I have had a small business for 30 years and in this, my 31st year, business has never been worse because of the economy. I have no special position to which to return and nor do I seek one. However, I wish to empathise and to try to bring to the House the messages I receive in my clinics and my office, as do all Members, from the ordinary people who are being visited by the sheriff and are being tormented by Revenue. I refer to ordinary, honest to goodness law-abiding citizens who always pays their way, who want to pay their way and who wish to provide for their families but who are being denied that obligation. Members should recall the changes that were introduced in last year's budget in respect of pension funds and which took effect this year on public servants who had been paying into that fund all their lives. Now, however, they will receive a reduced sum, as Members are capable of taking such action. People cannot understand the reason Members of the Oireachtas are a protected species and this was the reason I included Deputies and Senators in the motion.

The Minister knows, having canvassed in many elections, that the people think we are an elite group. In the past week they heard the Taoiseach and the Minster for Finance, Deputy Noonan, say that they cannot do anything about these pensions. We should devise a constitutional amendment if we must. Contractual obligations and property rights do not matter when there are cuts to carers, people with disabilities and everybody else. It is not fair.

As legislators we can change the law and force these geniuses to give up their pensions and pay, which they do not deserve because they did not fulfil their contracts. They looked to avoid their contractual obligations and were reckless. In any other job in the private sector they would have been penalised and money would have been taken from them. I do not believe that we cannot deal with the matter here. I often heard the retort when I attended parliamentary party meetings that we had to act on the advice of the Attorney General. I even asked at one stage if we had to take the advice or if we could we get a second opinion. The Attorney General is only one person, although I am not criticising the office.

There was mention of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those pension funds, of €229,417, were mentioned when I spoke to the motion. As Deputy Ross noted, all these posts and institutions are discredited because they are self-policing. We are asking bankers to take a voluntary cut in pensions, and although I acknowledge Mr. Sheehy's actions, he still has a pension of €250,000. That does not go down with the ordinary people. We are fooling ourselves, and that is why the motion was tabled.

Most people spoke fairly on the motion but Deputy McCarthy and the chairman of the Labour Party decided to be vitriolic in attacking me. In a six-month period in 2009, when there were 55 votes in Seanad Éireann, Deputy McCarthy was present for 15 of them. In a nine-year period he pocketed €1 million as a Senator.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is untrue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the figures.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should withdraw the statement.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is untrue. I would not expect anything less from the Deputy.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy had his chance last night.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I expect nothing else.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chairman of the Labour Party, this brilliant Deputy from Galway-----

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mattie McGrath rubbed Bertie's belly.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy left that sinking ship like a rat.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has the rat in his pockets.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The truth hurts.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You deserted a sinking ship.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies must address the Chairman.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party chairman-----

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chairman Mao.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party messiah accused me of rubbing Bertie's belly. I never had a personal relationship with Bertie Ahern.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A monkey grinding.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Acting Chairman might remember what was an ass and car or a gennet. There was always a belly band underneath the gennet's belly.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is a monkey grinding away.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chairman of the Labour Party is the belly band holding the fat blueshirts together.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The €40,000 allowance is very generous. It should be vouched, as should every other shilling. Figures have been circulated relating to political party allowances; I did not know for three years that my party was collecting €100,000 per year because I was elected against its wishes in Tipperary South. I found out the hard way but I know now. The parties are getting millions of euro. The day we do not learn something is a very bad day.

I am appealing to the Minister. He tried to achieve cuts in the public service but he failed. Why should that not happen when people in the public service can see what is going on in here? We must empathise with the ordinary people. I am not saying I have any more right than others to speak on people's behalf but I am trying to be honest. I met people today who will endure all kinds of cuts, with business disappearing. We must get real on the issue and empathise with the ordinary people.

The political funding for every party can be seen, although it is not very pleasurable reading. The Government should stop attacking us as we are willing to work with the Minister. We are willing to have the funding examined and everything vouched.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take the hit.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take hits but we must be fair and reasonable. We cannot have bankers, senior politicians and regulators who were asleep on the job walking around with €150,000 pensions. It is an insult to the electorate, which will vote again. We must have confidence in the House or there will be trouble on the streets. I commend the motion to the House. Those opposite should vote with their conscience.