Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

I thank all Senators who contributed to the debate, including those who said they will vote against the motion. I suggest that those Government Senators who feel that former Ministers are entitled to draw certain pensions when they have retired as Ministers and returned to the backbenches should use their own Private Members' time, the next time it arises, to make a case to that effect. I alluded in my opening speech to the need for a broader debate. If it is needed, we should have it. We have proposed a motion on this issue this evening.

I accept this is a topical issue. As long ago as 9 July 2009, Deputy Bruton said during his Second Stage speech on Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill 2009 that "pensions payable to serving Members of the Oireachtas should be entirely abolished". He said it was wrong to make such payments but nothing was done in that regard. This issue, which has been the subject of a long-standing debate within and outside politics, has come to the fore in recent weeks. That is the way it happens in politics - things bubble away under the surface before coming to the top and needing to be dealt with. That is the way life is. If Senators on the other side feel they did not get enough time to explain why the Fine Gael motion is wrong, they should propose a motion of their own the next time they have Private Members' time outlining why these perks should be retained into the future.

The argument that has been made against the implementation of legislation in this area is that it would disproportionately discriminate against people's property rights. It has also been suggested it would cost too much to introduce such legislation. That is the weakest argument, to be honest, given that we imprison people who do not pay €100 for television licences even though it costs €2,000 a week to keep them in jail. It costs as much to put them in there in the first place. It is not a very strong argument. We should consider the introduction of legislation for other reasons, for example to defend the principles of social justice, to uphold the common good and to highlight the powers of the Oireachtas. We need to make it clear that both Houses can show leadership when it is required.

Three individuals who are Members of the European Parliament or Members of the Oireachtas are refusing to accept the general consensus, which is that ministerial pensions should no longer be paid. We should be more forceful in insisting that such payments are stopped. They are contributing greatly to the public anger that is a feature of the manner in which we, as individuals, and these two Houses, as institutions, are perceived. That is why this step should be taken. We are in the eye of the storm when it comes to public anger. Many of the things we do are extremely good and of benefit to the people. We are well paid. The general public may continue to disagree with the payment of some of the allowances we receive. We are given allowances to run our offices and fulfil other aspects of our jobs.

There is something wrong with the payment of ministerial pensions to sitting Members of the Oireachtas. As Senator Quinn said, retiring Ministers remain with the same employer until they leave the Oireachtas. There has been something wrong with such payments for a while. This issue was brought to the fore as this country's economic situation worsened. Those of us who have been Members of the Oireachtas since 2002 have seen dramatic changes in the pay, terms and conditions under which we work by comparison with those that prevailed a few short years ago. We have accepted many changes in light of what is happening. We should insist that this change be made on behalf of all Deputies, Senators and Members of the European Parliament.