Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

We are not reneging on anything. It was suggested that the Minister was not engaged. The Minister and the Government engaged with the report of the Commission on Public Service Pensions and acted on its recommendation, albeit not a unanimous one, that 65 years should be the retirement age for teachers. A group of persons who examined this issue decided it was a reasonable proposal.

I emphasise that there are and must be provisions to deal with teachers who suffer from incapacity or burn-out, to use the current rather unpleasant noun. Arrangements have always been made in such circumstances and nothing in the Bill affects them. The legislation is concerned with the pensionable age for teachers, on which the Government and the Minister accepted the commission's recommendation of 65 years. Where ill health is involved, the added years are taken into account, and where a person suffers from burn-out, it is a matter for negotiation between the Department and the staff side as to how much leeway can be given. All these matters will continue to operate after the enactment of the legislation. Where the Bill introduces change for the teaching profession, and I accept this is the case for new entrants, is that the basic, primary pensionable provision will now be 65 years, in line with the commission's recommendation.

As regards politicians and those in public life, just as members of the teaching profession are concerned about the future of their profession, which I understand, similar concerns are expressed about the future of public life. Originally politicians were not salaried. Later, as Senator O'Toole pointed out, allowances were introduced, often at the behest of socialist and republican parties in western Europe who wanted representation of the people, by the people, for the people, but found it difficult to participate in parliaments which operated as exclusive clubs for wealthy individuals. When one considers all those who laboured on behalf of this country, whom we often criticise, one group of men who travelled across the Irish Sea for a long time to represent our country in Westminster often had to live in deplorable conditions in London because no payment was made to parliamentary representatives at the time. As a result, Parnell, his party and their successors in the Home Rule movement had to represent the country and the nationalist interest virtually without subsidy for a substantial period. This has changed dramatically. Notwithstanding the views and reservations expressed about the Minister for Finance's proposal in this area, it is undeniable that he, more than any of his predecessors, has recognised the need to provide a good basic salary and a good basic system of expenses for those elected to political office.

Reservations, which I can understand, have been expressed about the impact and effect on the vocation of politics of not providing for pensions before the age of 65. Senator Mansergh made a fair point that not everyone under this age is impecunious. There are those who can repair to the Law Library, commercial life or other forms of activity, and others whose reputation in public life is so great that, notwithstanding their rejection by the electorate, they are willingly embraced by others. Many of those who pass through this establishment have a happy passage elsewhere, while others, as Senator Mansergh stated, can fall on hard times. Provisions for severance payments for former Ministers and Members are in place and can extend for up to two years after leaving office or the Houses. As these will also be available for new entrants, there is no change in this respect.

We are exposed to considerable public criticism concerning the early pension arrangements, which stem from a different age. I am not sure they are as great an incentive to persons entering public life as is represented and we do not do ourselves any injustice by removing them. I appreciate the concern expressed by Senators but the Minister has decided to adopt this initiative. While I am sure many Senators would not accept the proposition that one should close one's eyes and trust the Minister for Finance on any public question, on this matter he has done a good job in advancing the entitlements of Members and the status of Ministers, and in ensuring that those who find themselves on the benches of either House are properly remunerated for what is, as one Member pointed out, a seven-day per week job, which continues without cesser. He is entitled to some consideration on the view that if we are asking other public servants to accept a pensionable age of 65, it is only just that we apply the rule to ourselves.