Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Since the establishment of the State the payments to public representatives in the Houses of the Oireachtas have evolved through many stages, from a point where their wages were considered relatively modest compared to the average industrial wage to the point where a number of compensatory measures were introduced to encourage people to enter public life. They included an expenses regime that was perhaps over generous and largely unaccounted for. However, other measures were in place under which 50% of one's salary was not taxable. It took many years to get rid of this anomaly in the 1970s. Even up to the 1970s the wages of Members of the Oireachtas were relatively modest compared to the average industrial wage. However, since the 1990s there has been a considerable increase to the extent that they are now a multiple of the average industrial wage. The compensatory measures put in place were let stand and reforms were not introduced soon enough. We now have a system in place under which the expenses regime has been changed in order that it involves an element of accountability and vouched expenditure. I am not sure whether it is the right mechanism, but it is a sincere attempt to have in place a new regime.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, outlined, there are several areas in which the Government have introduced significant reforms in making payments to persons involved in public life. I refer not only to the reduction in the level of ministerial wages, the reduction in the number of Ministers of State, the cut Members of both Houses have suffered with everyone else in the public service and the public service levy, but also to other measures such as the abolition of the seven and ten-year increments, of which Senator Twomey and I have been victims, and the introduction of the new expenses regime which the Minister of State failed to mention. As an accounting exercise, the amount of money spent on politicians is far lower than it used to be, which is no bad thing. There may be a reactionary element to this; certainly, there are elements in the media who are bathed in hypocrisy, given the wage levels of and pension arrangements for many of the opinion-forming columnists who write on this issue. There is, however, justifiable public concern about the nature of some of the payments made which has crystallised in the pensions issue. First, the scale of the pensions paid rightly seems to intimidate and upset people; second, there is the fact that multiple payments are made; third, there is the question of pensions being paid to persons still in receipt of salaries, all of which has been deemed as unacceptable by the general public.

There has been an attempt to address the issue by means of various pieces of legislation. Senator Twomey will remember that five or six years ago legislation changed the entitlements of future Members of the Oireachtas and Ministers to receive a pension before retirement age. I think both the Senator and I got in under the counter in that regard. Those elected in the two by-elections before the 2007 general election and all new Members of the Oireachtas and all new ministerial appointees since 2007 are all governed by that legislation. Had I chosen to take what would have been a very modest pension of €300 a week, the equivalent of a State pension, I would have been claiming that sum for a period of 25 years and possibly more after five years' service. We need a debate on pensions in general. Compared to other European countries, Ireland has a demographic advantage but it also has an ageing population. If we are serious about providing for the payment of pensions, there has to be a better bridge between the contributions people make and the amounts they receive. This is an important debate.

The Fine Gael motion reflects wider public concern on the issue. Ironically, a ministerial pension was designed as compensation and meant to benefit those who had been in office and subsequently found themselves in opposition. Those who benefit most from this measure are members of the Opposition. It was designed to compensate for the loss of office. However, we are living in different times and expectations are different. The general salary level of Members of the Oireachtas is generous compared to the average industrial wage.

The actions of those who have given up their pensions have been commendable; such actions needed to be taken. On the question of whether legislation is required to tackle the handful who remain and want to hold on to their pension payments, the economics of such a move should be considered. Introducing legislation to cover the period up to the next general election, to tease out the constitutional niceties, would probably cost the State more than the value of money outstanding. At a time when we are seeking to curb public expenditure, is this something we need to do? I do not think further legislation needs to be enacted between now and the next general election.

Another category of public representative is also covered by this principle. We need to introduce controls governing the circumstances, the amounts and the timing in terms of when people receive pensions. This will require more all-embracing legislation than is envisaged by the motion. The matter should be dealt with under the auspices of promised legislation covering the period when politicians leave office and enter the private sector. The programme for Government refers to a period of 12 months. I am disappointed with the ethics committee of the European Commission which has made a poor decision in this regard. It should be a general principle that anyone who leaves a decision-making role should have to wait for a period of at least 12 months before he or she takes up an equivalent role in the private sector in an area for which he or she had regulatory responsibility. That is what I would like to see included in all-embracing legislation. This is a debate which could be usefully held in this House in time to come.

We need to return to the matter of dealing with the other contradictions and anomalies, quirks of the system, which cause public concern. I would like to think the economic position is becoming less uncertain, that there are signs that we may be heading back to better times. Many citizens find themselves in difficult times, it is difficult to find money to spend.

The time of this and the other House would be better used in bringing forward legislation to introduce and protect the notion of fairness. The political class - politicians and political parties - needs to be proactive to win back the confidence of the people. It needs to be less reactionary. We need to identify the flaws in the system and introduce legislation. We can act in a more unified way than in the past, but neither can such legislation be rushed. This will be a major debating theme in the general election whenever it happens. The new Government after the general election will be informed by the need to introduce such legislation. I look forward to a continuing debate on the issue.