Michael McCarthy (Labour)

It is now 12.45 a.m. I pay tribute to the members of staff who have to be here to allow us to debate this very important Bill. There are people who should have gone home long ago and, for a variety of reasons, are still here and are allowing us to debate this Bill.

I agree with much of what Senator Hanafin said. His chronological account of the elections of the early 1980s is quite correct. There were general elections in June 1981, February 1982 and November 1982. The only five-year term of the 1980s was from November 1982 to the summer of 1987 which was, in effect, four and a half years. It was the only term that spanned five calendar years. During that time the country was in the grip of a major economic depression, unemployment had spiralled to levels that were previously unseen and the national debt, interest rates and emigration were significant issues. Governments of various hues tried to deal as best they could with the economic situation of the day, but fell because they could not reach consensus. It was a very dark, murky time for the Irish Republic, for some more than others.

When I was elected to Cork County Council ten years ago, I remember learning about various members who had served on the local authority, some who had very distinguished careers, were very lucky and had been re-elected and others who had lost their council seats. Tragically, in terms of political careers, people had mortgaged houses and borrowed money from banks to finance election campaigns in the 1980s. Some only had six month terms, went on to contest Seanad elections and had no success there. What did they have towards the end of their political careers? They had nothing. They had no job because they had lost their Dáil seats and were not successful in Seanad elections. They only thing they could boast of was a parking space in Dublin which they could only use if they were here, which was not much good to somebody tucked in the recesses of the southern parts of Munster.

One case concerned a Member who had lost his Dáil seat and had arranged to visit the leader of his party - I will try to spare blushes by being as vague as I can - with a Telecom Éireann phone bill for more than £600 which he could not afford to pay. He had a wife and a young family. He was not very old and is still working in the public sector, but he had been bankrupted by politics. We must bear in mind, in the context of debating this Bill, that it was not a very well-paid job back then and there was no security of tenure. There was no guarantee that one was here for any length of time.

What has changed since then? There have been, as Senator Hanafin quite rightly pointed out, five-year terms. It is an unusual feature in politics but has been in place since 1997. Most of us have replaced people who have served on local authorities or in the Oireachtas. If one looks at the wealth or status of such people in terms of assets, in my case it is not much. I do not see millionaires who have made significant amounts of money from politics. I see people who have given of their time to get elected, have given service to the public and have not benefitted from politics in the same way in which they would have benefitted from a trade, occupation or profession outside politics.

The media discusses politics a lot, such as the Sunday Independent which stated Deputies were running off for three months of holidays while the country is stuck in an economic quagmire. That is not the case. There are people, including some in this House, who have made the case for a pay cut across the public sector and that we should lead by volunteering to take pay cuts and giving up long service increments. I am one of those affected by the long service increment and I do not mind giving it up. It is a sacrifice we must make to show some element of solidarity with those who have lost their jobs and will lose their jobs before the year is out.

I do not write for a newspaper. This is my job and occupation. I do not have a job to fall back on; I resigned a permanent, pensionable job to contest an election in 2002. I do not have the luxury of saying we should take a 10% or 20% pay cut and fall back on an occupational pension from a previous incarnation. I am 32 years of age and my wife and I have a 30-year mortgage with two years of it paid for. We have just been blessed with a new baby. We have a young family. That type of dynamic does not exist with those who can lecture and pontificate about what we should be doing. I do not job-share with the Sunday Independent. I do not have something to fall back on. I do not have pensions. I do not do this job in my spare time.

In agreeing this Bill, we are agreeing to forgo a long service increment, and rightly so. However, I have an issue, namely, serving Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann who are in receipt of ministerial pensions. They have been elected, have served their time and have been lucky to have been selected for office. If we are serious about the long service increment, why does it not affect those who already have it? Would it be fair and proper now to go to the public sector, including nurses, gardaí and teachers, and say Deputies and Senators have led by forgoing the long service increment? What other arm of the public sector would agree to that? Would it be acceptable to go to any other arm of the public sector? No, it would not.

We are constantly under the spotlight and being held to account, and rightly so. However, it is time for a level playing pitch. Very few Members of the House qualify for the long service increment this month. I am one and I am happy to forgo it. I wrote to the one stop shop in January and told it I would be happy to forgo the payment in solidarity with those the length and breadth of the country who have lost their jobs.

When we debate this Bill, let us bear balance and fairness in mind. Let us judge those who argue in favour of it in terms of what they are themselves, because I get sick and fed-up of pious platitudes and people who say politicians are all in it for themselves, that they are all creaming it. I have the political bug, and am very honoured to have been elected to Seanad Éireann on two occasions and to have been elected to a local authority. It is a significant honour to bestow on an individual by their peers, as has happened most of us. We are accountable to those people and are lucky to be here. I have the political bug; I chased it and find it very fulfilling. I believe politics is worthwhile and that we can effect change but if the majority of Members of this House had remained in their previous occupations I am sure they would have earned more money. I could earn double what I do as a Senator and would not be judged once every quarter by an excuse for a newspaper that uses the Freedom of Information Act. Some newspapers say we are all in this job for the money and that we will be gone from July to October. They say when we return we will pay lip service to the economic situation the country faces between October and Christmas, but this is not the case.

There is very little in this Bill with which I disagree and I am happy the Leader has decided to take Second Stage tonight. I do not think it would be appropriate to rush such legislation without proper examination because there are issues that require further scrutiny. It seems to me the language of the Bill refers to people here and now and not other Members of the Oireachtas after the next election. Does this mean those currently in receipt of the long-service increment will lose it after the next general election? I look forward to teasing out the issues relating to the other Stages with the Minister of State.

Let us not forget our colleagues who have lost out and who never made substantial sums of money from politics. Public service is a duty and to be elected is an honour. Through the years there have been around 2,000 Members of the Dáil and Seanad and only a handful were involved in activities that required examination by tribunals. It is a tribute to our democracy that most people have endeavoured to serve this country well and leave it in a better state than it was in when they got involved in public service. Let us not forget the figures, accountability and the great contribution we all must make.

The Attorney General advised the Government it can reduce the ministerial pensions to current Members of the Oireachtas by 25% but that does not go far enough. If the Government had left this matter to Members' own devices some would have volunteered to surrender their pensions. The ministerial pension was surrendered by a former Member of this House who did not run to the media seeking recognition and this must be commended. Regardless of party affiliation, I wish all Members were the same because this is about showing solidarity with workers all over the country who have lost their jobs.