Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Nov 2012

Vol. 781 No. 1

Pensions and Retirement Lump Sums: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

in view of the Government’s:

— exhortations to Irish citizens to embrace austerity;

— decision to raid ordinary citizens’ pension funds;

— threat to end tax relief on ordinary citizens’ pension contributions in the forthcoming budget; and

— recent changes to the qualifying conditions for the contributory state pension;

calls on the Government to end the current system of paying grossly over generous pensions and massive lump sums on retirement to office holders such as Cabinet Ministers, taoisigh, Deputies, Senators, senior public servants, State regulators including the Financial Regulator, members of the Judiciary and the CEOs of semi-State bodies and State-funded banks.

I wish to share time.

I understand Deputy Mattie McGrath wishes to share time with Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Seamus Healy, Finian McGrath, Thomas Pringle, Maureen O'Sullivan and Michael Healy-Rae. The Deputy has 12 minutes.

The Acting Chairman might inform me when ten minutes have passed.

I am delighted and privileged and thank my colleagues on the Technical Group for allowing me to table this motion and for their attendance this evening to support it. Moreover, many of them also have signed the motion. It is a pretty simple and straightforward motion which really only extends over three lines. It calls on the Government to end the current system of paying grossly over generous pensions and massive lump sums on retirement to officeholders such as Cabinet Ministers, taoisigh, Deputies and Senators, senior public servants, State regulators including the Financial Regulator, members of the Judiciary and the chief executive officers of semi-State bodies and State-funded banks and is signed by members of the Technical Group.

While I have read the Government's amendment to the motion, I will not discuss it but will make my own points because I do not believe any amendment to this simple motion is acceptable or worthy of the work Members are trying to do in this House, if one wishes to describe it as work. This is especially in light of the fact that savage fiscal austerity is being imposed on the ordinary citizens of this country. While it is stated this is at the behest of the troika, the present Government came into office with a different mandate, that is, it intended to reverse all those cuts and all that austerity, to burn the bondholders and God knows what else. At the time, then Deputy Gilmore told us that hellfire would not be hot enough for the bondholders. However, Members should consider what happened. The public and ordinary people have been subjected to the most vitriolic state of austerity with no future in sight for unemployed or disabled people, pensioners or young people who are going abroad. I note there now also has been criticism of The Gathering from people who have gone abroad and who do not wish to return to this country. They have been forced abroad, many to live illegally in different places and they see no future in this country.

It is as though there was no word other than "austerity" in the dictionary. The Government has adopted that mantra. It is like a relay baton being passed on, except the present Government ran faster and deeper with it and with greater vigour to bow down to the troika, to put people into penury and above all, to kill any form of stimulus or growth and to drive the economy further into the mire. It is not acceptable that those within the Government or who hold high office in the land, who are receiving massive salaries, expenses and major set-aside of taxpayers' money in respect of the funds to finance their pension pots, should legislate and dictate how literally to crucify, I hate using that word, low and middle-income earners, the unemployed, disabled people and many others. Last week, an article published in The Irish Times outlined that it would take €36 million to fund the pensions for the 15 Cabinet members at current rates. I acknowledge the Minister for State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is not a member of the Cabinet and I admire much of the work he does as a junior Minister and for being open and honest. However, I ask the Minister of State and his colleagues in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to reflect on this issue tonight and over the next 24 hours before debate resumes tomorrow evening. I also look forward to hearing their contributions and they should think about it before they vote on this motion because Members will be asked to pass a budget in less than a month's time and that will be the exact opposite. It is a total anathema to the public that Members can continue with this slush fund, as one must describe it, while penalising ordinary people, business people, those who wish to work and those who wish to get educated to further their careers and to benefit this country with their education, experience, passion and vigour and future generations.

The funding of the banking lump sums and retiring bank chief executive officers' pensions from bailouts, that is, from funds provided by the people of Ireland against their will, is not acceptable and the inherent inactivity of the Government in this regard is a total affront to people and to democracy. Earlier today during Leaders' Questions, I heard the Taoiseach state the Government was powerless but he was going to bring in a code of practice. Imagine that. Moreover, he stated the chief executive officers of the banks had written to some of those concerned asking them to pay back their pensions. They are laughing at us all the way to the bank, in the bank, out of the bank and from the bank, just as are the bondholders, that is, the gamblers and spectators. There is nothing wrong with gambling or speculation, which are needed in business people, but I refer to the massive gamblers who took risks with huge amounts of money, assisted by Anglo Irish Bank, "Mr. Fingers" and others. They are laughing at us all the way. Consequently, the people will not take any more, nor can they.

Given that all income must be taxed, what reason is there to allow a certain cohort of the population to benefit handsomely from the generosity of the Government? What is this about these protected species in Ireland? This did not happen today or yesterday but has happened over the past 20 years under the different cosy cartels and agreements that were negotiated at the behest of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, and which were willingly accepted by the Opposition at the time even though they now profess otherwise. They sought more in terms of Croke Park agreements, better local government and God knows what different deals were done when all the players, such as the Construction Industry Federation, union leaders and so on sat around the table. However, the ordinary people, those who Members are meant to represent, were left outside the door. They were left in the constituencies and were expected to sit down and to get the crumbs from the table. The cuts to the ordinary contributory State pension, which were passed in last year's budget at the behest of the Government, came into effect in September of this year. While it is possible to make such changes, namely, to cut the pension of an ordinary person who has spent years working and who will find he or she is not eligible to receive a pension of a meagre €230 per week, it is not deemed possible to cut pensions of €230,000. What is wrong? How is this credible? How can the Minister of State ever again go back to the electorate? Whatever about being able to fool them once, can they be fooled twice? That will never again be accepted by the public. I am glad to note we have an educated electorate and they will not put up with this because they were promised so much.

Last year, we paid out €156,328 in presidential pensions, almost €8.45 million in judicial pensions, retirement lump sums and death gratuities, approximately €367,000 in pensions for Attorneys General and €229,417.78 in pensions to Comptroller and Auditors General. The latter are the watchdogs who were supposed to be watching all of us. Who are they watching? As far as I am concerned, they are watching for themselves. They have gone up the ladder and have pulled the ladder up with them. They think they are so high and mighty that they cannot be touched. However, I can tell Members that this will come crumbling down. My philosophy is that it is easy to climb a tall tree that has been knocked down. These people must be brought into reality. These people must face the wrath of the people and unless Members act, I am afraid the people will. A shocking €4.1 million was paid in ministerial pensions and more than €1 million in severance payments to former Ministers. This is shocking by any standards. As for the Minister for Finance, while I do not wish to say anything in his absence, I note he currently is in receipt of a ministerial pension from a previous Administration which he has not surrendered, unlike many of his Cabinet colleagues who I salute.

The Government has been praising itself for its efforts in the matter since it entered office in March 2011. However, it still is the case that former officeholders such as the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, received €139,785.34. Moreover, the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton was in receipt of €131,399 and Mr. Dick Spring, the former Tánaiste, was in receipt of €114,806. In addition, the reformer of all reformers, the former Minister and great messiah, Mr. Noel Dempsey, who stated he did not even know the troika was coming to Ireland, is in receipt of €112,538. The list is endless but these figures stick in my mind because they were prophets of everything. However, what are they now but prophets of doom? Some of them had the cheek to tell people who shouted "halt" to go away and commit suicide. Imagine any Member of this House using such terminology.

If I turn to the bankers, the former AIB chief executive, Eugene Sheehy, from whom Members saw a lot last week with his arrogance towards a committee of this House, is being paid a pension of €529,000 per annum. Imagine that figure.

Many people, young and old, would hardly be able to write the figure, not to mind imagine it. On reaching his 65th birthday, the infamous Mr. Seánie FitzPatrick has a pension of €3 million from Anglo Irish Bank, the bank that is ashamed to keep its name. That same bank is persecuting Mr. Seán Quinn, an employer of some renown who has not been allowed to have his case heard in regard to Anglo Irish Bank and who has been put in prison. He should be out mentoring young people in transition year in schools on how to set up business, and the same applies to many others.

I am sure we do not need reminding that AIB is 99.8% State owned following a bailout to the tune of €20.87 billion, yet we allow these pensions to be paid. Do we think the people are complete and utter idiots? Do we take them for fools? The Government may have spin doctors to peddle its side, but this is an affront to democracy. If this motion is not dealt with, I do not know where we will end up and I am very concerned.

I ask the Deputy to be mindful not to mention names of people who are outside the House.

The people I have mentioned were in the House for a long time.

They were here long enough and left their mark.

They left their mark, a black stain, that means it will take generations for our country to recover. It is a stain on the men of 1916, 1921 and 1922 who fought to free the country, and it has besmirched their memory. Our people want to be an honest, hard-working, decent and aspirant people and they are entitled to the energy and the breath to live, but if we go ahead with a budget to cut a further €3.5 billion from the economy, it will close down Ireland, and that has been proved by many financial experts. Austerity has not worked and does not work.

I have met the troika three times and I cannot for the life of me understand how it has insisted on and allowed continue this patent arrogance and robbery which has put all the people into penury. I believe the troika is being fooled by senior officials and Ministers and that it is being told mistruths. When I first met the troika it told us the Government has a mandate for what it is doing. It got a mandate for the exact opposite, which I told the troika. When I met the troika a second time, it told me the Government was predicting a growth rate of 2% this year in Ireland. I asked who was telling it that. It was reluctant to tell me but I found out afterwards it was the gurus in the Department of Finance, the same advisers who advised the late Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and are advising the current Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan - the same brainboxes who are embarrassed. Mr. Cardiff was sent off to greener pastures because he knew too much and if he had to answer too much, we know what would happen: too many people would be embarrassed, upset and hurt.

I take the Acting Chairman's warning but I cannot refrain from mentioning these people because they are the elite, the protected, and the people who put our country into penury and are walking off with disgraceful pensions.

The last time I met the troika was two weeks ago when it accepted there would not be growth but that we are ready for more austerity because the Taoiseach told Angela Merkel that everything is all right. She pats him on the head and sends him back to Ireland, blowing or passing a kiss, and he appears in magazines. I will not mention magazines in case I mention the wrong one. More power to whatever magazine in which he features but he should not tell the world that Ireland is ready, willing and able and going well. We are willing and able when allowed to work, when allowed to have dignity for home helps, home help hours, and personal assistants. I thank the Acting Chairman for his forbearance.

I commend Deputy Mattie McGrath on tabling the motion. This is an issue on which there is strong public feeling and it is not to be taken lightly. People are raging at the injustice of what is going on. The view of the people, and it is not just a slogan because they can see it in front of them, is that there is one law for the rich and another law for the rest of us. That is their view when they see ordinary working people, the vulnerable sectors of society, pensioners and young people being crushed by income reductions, reduced services, levies, charges and taxes that are pushing them into poverty and into a situation where they can barely pay their bills or cannot pay their mortgages. They are being pushed into homelessness. People are in a state of despair and they bear no responsibility whatever for the economic crimes - the economic treason - that was perpetrated in this country by a cabal of bankers, politicians and top civil servants. Ordinary people pay the bill while being driven into poverty, unemployment, emigration, suffering, despair and, worse, suicide. They then see the cabal that was at the helm of the financial institutions and the State apparatus walking away with obscene pensions and lump sum payments. The people who were in positions of power and made the key decisions that brought the country to its knees are walking away with pensions that are disgusting. They would be disgusting at any time, but it is outrageous in the current climate when ordinary people are being crushed, to see bankers, politicians and top civil servants, who were at the helm when the country was dragged to the edge of the abyss, receiving these pensions.

The figures are shocking. The former AIB boss, Mr. Eugene Sheehy, has €529,000 per year for the rest of his life, almost 20 times the average industrial wage. He was the head of a bank which helped bankrupt the country. Mr. Colm Doherty, also of AIB, will receive €300,000 per year. Mr. Brian Goggin of Bank of Ireland, who will have €650,000 per year for the rest of his life, was the chief executive of the other major bank that helped bring the country to its knees. What about the politicians? The former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern has a pension of €152,000 per year for the rest of his life, the former Taoiseach, Mr. Brian Cowen has €151,000 per year for the rest of his life, the former Minister, Ms Mary Harney has €129,000 per year for the rest of her life. What about the top civil servants? Mr. Dermot McCarthy, former secretary to the Government, will go away with a lump sum payment of €713,000 and €142,000 per year, the former Secretary General of the Department of Finance who was there on the infamous night of the bank guarantee walks away with €115,000 per year, and the former Financial Regulator who was asleep at the wheel while all this was going on walks away with €143,000 per year. It is disgusting and simply not good enough to say the contractual obligations mean there is nothing we can do about this. One wonders whether there is a serious commitment on the part of the Government or whether the contractual obligation issue is just an excuse given that the Cabinet will walk away with pensions worth €36 million after it finishes its term of office.

There is not a legal impediment to doing something about this. If there are problems with legalities, there is a simple way to do it. A super-tax can be imposed on these people. That is what needs to be done. We need to get the money back. If people have to suffer any more and have to go through what is likely to be done to them in the budget and at the same time see people walking away with annual pensions of obscene proportions, that rage will explode. People are not willing to take it any more and the Government, if it is serious about being fair, will have to do something about this. It can be done by imposing a super-tax on bankers, politicians and top civil servants who presided over the economic disaster that has been visited on the country.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of this motion. It goes to the heart of our economic and social situation. A golden circle of bankers, politicians and their supporters have been cosseted by this and the previous Government while middle and low income families are subjected to heartless cutbacks on a daily if not hourly basis. The Irish people have bailed out hopelessly insolvent banks to the tune of €64 billion. We have repaid the private debts of private banks. What thanks have we been given? Low and middle income earners have been played for fools by bankers with the help of this and the previous Government.

The retired CEO of AIB, Mr. Eugene Sheehy, has an annual pension worth €529,000. His counterpart from Bank of Ireland has an annual pension of €650,000. These obscene and outrageous figures are approximately 20 times the average industrial wage, yet the banks in question were bailed out by the public because they were hopelessly insolvent.

The previous Government had no difficulty with cutting the pay and pensions of public servants, including the low paid, via the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, claims that he is powerless, but that is only because he wants to be powerless. If there was the political will to sort out this problem, a way would be found. There is a way, but political will is necessary. The problem could and should be solved by passing legislation to put the banking system into public ownership. However, the Government has decided not to do this. On the watch of a Government that includes the Labour Party, 35% of Bank of Ireland has been sold to an American venture capital company for just €1 billion.

Thanks be to God for that.

The Irish people own 15% of it, having paid well in excess of €4 billion. This is a scandal. The Labour Party has capitulated to the right-wing capitalist ethos of Fine Gael in allowing this sale. It must not happen again. The neoliberalism espoused by the Irish establishment has destroyed our economy and society. People like the CEO of Bank of Ireland are now more answerable to American venture capitalists than they are to the Government, the country or the Dáil.

Many of the public interest directors at AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB are former Ministers. It is scandalous that they have received approximately €1 million in fees for their roles. Where are they? They have not reported to the Government or been asked to do so. Why has the Minister for Finance not called them in and given them direction?

The scandal of sizeable salaries and pensions in the banking sector can only be dealt with by nationalising the banks and making them answerable to the Irish people, the Government and the Dáil.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute on this important debate on the need for an urgent reform of how citizens' money is spent by the State. I commend my colleague, Deputy Mattie McGrath, and the Independents on tabling this Private Members' motion. I wish to tell the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, that we are not a rag-bag of Independents. Rather, we are a group of Independent Deputies who stand for change, reform and good, sound economic policies. The former Minister's recent attack on Members of the Oireachtas was a disgrace and should not go unchallenged. His failed political policies should never be forgotten.

I wish to set out a clear way forward for the country. It must be fair and just. In an economic crisis, those who have the most should take the greatest hit. I am sick and tired of children, the disabled, senior citizens and carers taking that hit. I urge fairness and common sense in tonight's debate. We need to tax those who have money, not the needy in society. This must be a red line issue ahead of the budget. I call on the Government and Government backbenchers to support our motion, which states:

That Dáil Éireann:

in view of the Government's:

- exhortations to Irish citizens to embrace austerity;

- decision to raid ordinary citizens' pension funds;

- threat to end tax relief on ordinary citizens' pension contributions in the forthcoming budget; and

- recent changes to the qualifying conditions for the contributory State pension;

calls on the Government to end the current system of paying grossly overgenerous pensions and massive lump sums on retirement to office holders such as Cabinet Ministers, taoisigh, Deputies, Senators, senior public servants, State regulators including the Financial Regulator, members of the Judiciary and the CEOs of semi-State bodies and State-funded banks.

Last week, I received a call from a young teacher on the subject of allowances. Her take-home salary was €24,000 per annum and her husband had been laid off. She was concerned about the removal of her €4,000 allowance for her honours degree. It would have a major impact on her family. Some people have a go at public servants when allowances are debated, but I am referring to public servants who serve this country well and are low paid or are on the average industrial wage.

The motion is about the prudent management of our public finances and using the savings appropriately, for example, services for the disabled, senior citizens and carers. Today, we learned that €38 million had been wasted on preparing the Mater hospital site. Some people predict that the amount could be higher, yet the Government wants another site. God help us when we enter the planning phase of that project. Consider what €40 million could do for carers, the disabled, senior citizens and the unemployed.

The Government was elected on the issues of waste and value for money, yet it is squandering and wasting. This is not good enough. The money saved via our motion would go a long way towards saving the services at, for example, St. Michael's House or Prosper Fingal in Swords and Portmarnock. Many disabled northsiders use and need those services. So much for all of the talk about protecting the vulnerable in society. I urge everyone to support the disability march at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 November from College Green to Leinster House on Kildare Street.

This motion brings a sense of justice to the debate on our public finances and the spending of our citizens' money. The current system of paying grossly overgenerous pensions and massive lump sums must end. How can a Minister or any politician have the brass neck to seek cuts to services for pensions or the disabled while this gravy train continues? It is up to each of us to be accountable and transparent. Politicians, in particular those on the Government side, must lead by example. For this reason, I urge all Deputies across the floor of the House to support our motion.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate on the level of pensions payable to higher public servants and Ministers. It is a timely motion, particularly in light of the hand-wringing of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance during Leaders' Questions today when questions were asked about bankers' pensions and pay-offs to former CEOs.

The former CEO of Bank of Ireland received a €3 million lump sum and will receive a pension of more than €0.5 million every year for the rest of his life. The Government wrings its hands, says there is nothing it can do about it, there are contractual arrangements and that it does not like it but it must get on with it. Maybe it cannot do something about it for legal reasons but this motion refers to something about which it can do something and on which it needs to take action right away.

The motion refers to the austerity people are suffering. The Taoiseach is being lauded around Europe and in Time magazine on how he is saving the Irish economy. He is asking people to embrace this austerity and is saying that will get us out of the trouble we are in and take us on the road to recovery. However, there is a failure to tackle the lump sums, the severance payments and the pensions of Ministers in a meaningful way. We constantly read in the newspapers about the amount of money Ministers are paid and we read in recent days that the pensions of the existing Cabinet would require a pension fund of €36 million if it had to get it in the private sector. Members of the public are sickened when they hear that. Members of the Oireachtas are passing these changes and the Government is forcing through the cuts on ordinary citizens but we are not dealing with these issues. In the past couple of weeks, we saw the flat refusal of the Government to have a debate on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission's budget and Estimate for next year in which we could have highlighted and questioned the ongoing funding of the political system.

The Government could act in regard to these pensions and severance payments and make these changes which would send out a clear signal to the public that it is serious about these changes and that we are all in this together. I call on the Minister to bring forward another financial emergency measures in the public interest Bill and set the severance payments for Ministers and higher civil servants at a level to which ordinary people can relate and with which we expect ordinary workers to be happy. I suggest we set the severance payments at the statutory redundancy rate. We expect workers who are made redundant and who contribute the best part of their lives to the profitability of the factories in which they work to accept a statutory lump sum and, if they are lucky, an extra week or two on top of that as part of their severance payment. We should introduce a system which sets severance payments for Ministers and higher civil servants at statutory redundancy levels. That would be reasonable and acceptable to every citizen. It would lead to more than acceptable lump sums being paid to people in recognition of the fact they have to give up their jobs.

Over the past couple of years, I have spoken to members of Government parties about this issue and they have said it has to be paid and that it is right Deputies, Senators and Ministers should get these big lump sums in recognition of the public service they have provided. I do not believe they should get them. We should set them at the statutory redundancy rate. That would mean a lump sum on retirement of €12,000 for ten years as a Minister, which would be the same as someone working in a factory for ten years would achieve if made redundant. That is something people would really accept and it would send a very clear message to every citizen that the Government and Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas are on their side and are working for them and not against them.

Tá sé tráthúil go bhfuil an t-ábhar seo á phlé againn inniu agus gabhaim buíochas don Teachta Mattie McGrath, a thosaigh an díospóireacht. It is very opportune because last week I, like many others, watched appalled the proceedings of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform. I saw what I can only describe as disdain on the part of bankers who had been called in to answer questions. Those questions were very probing and pertinent and were the kind of questions most people in society are asking. The impression I got was that their appearance at the committee was kind of an annoyance and a nuisance to get out of the way. Having deigned to come to the committee, they would leave and it would be business as usual afterwards. Of course, that business as usual means they continue on these highly inflated and, in this current climate, obscene salaries and pensions.

As we know, AIB used some of the €1.1 billion it got from the State to fund the estimated €0.5 million yearly pension to the former chief executive. The Taoiseach said today that it was also to cover the other voluntary retirements but the same point applies. A current chief executive will receive €300,000 per annum when he turns 65.

We have the list of these very inflated salaries and pensions which people are getting. They continue for State bodies, charitable organisations, bankers, members of the Judiciary, senior publics servants, the CEOs of semi-State bodies, former Cabinet Ministers, Taoisigh, senior gardaí, Army officers, the President etc. Most unfair is that most of those who are getting these pensions are getting salaries and, in quite a number of cases, they are members of boards for which they are getting an array of expenses. It is all part of that same culture of unfairness.

I, too, read Mr. Stephen Collins's article in The Irish Times last Saturday. He looked at the cost of paying these pensions and he made the point that these pensions were well in excess of those paid to public figures in other European countries. So much has gone into the banks and yet they continue to call the shots. The recession and the cuts are hitting sections of society disproportionately and there appears to be little or no attempt to look across all sections of society. Irish people are among the most generous and we see that in the way in which they donate to various causes. Our recovery could have been a co-operative and collaborative effort and venture if there had been proportionate burden-sharing but it has not been proportionate.

I would be against these inflated salaries and pensions in good times because there is a limit which salaries and pensions should not exceed. To continue to pay these amounts in these straitened times is not only incredible but immoral. I do not think there has been any effort to address the pension issue and only a token gesture to cut the excessive salaries. I do not accept the Minister for Finance's statement that he is powerless to reign in the salaries nor do I accept the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform's statement that these people had a legitimate expectation that the pensions would continue regardless of the condition of the State's finances because surely that should apply to every member of society. This elite group will continue in the manner to which they have become accustomed regardless of the fact that this country is in dire financial straits.

The estimate in 2009 of the accrued liability to the State for public service pensions was €116 billion and that was before all of those voluntary retirements came following the February deadline. Another aspect to that deadline was the loss of experience and expertise in the public sector of those people who were almost pressured into retiring.

I would not agree with those inflated salaries and pensions even if somebody was doing a good job but we are giving them to people who are doing a disastrous job. It is like the bigger the mess they create, the bigger the salary, the bonus and the pension for those in charge of the banks. The banks have been bailed out for their mismanagement but those in mortgage arrears and negative equity must do their own bailing out with little or no resources and there is no debt forgiveness for those people.

I wonder about the psychological make up of the people on those salaries and pensions because obviously values like justice and fairness are not part of that make up nor is the aspect of social justice. Today the Taoiseach spoke about the former senior executives in banks being asked to make a voluntary decision to hand back the pensions but why are they not being told in the way communities are being told their community employment schemes are being cut and people with disabilities, schools and hospitals are being told they must take a cut? He mentioned the public interest directors but they are certainly not acting in the public interest. There is a challenge for the Government in the budget.

President Michael D. Higgins mentioned the need for a different set of values for our country which would bring about an ethical and inclusive society. What is happening with these salaries and pension is not contributing to that nor is the Government which allows it.

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, and thank the Technical Group for giving me some of its speaking time. I compliment Deputy Mattie McGrath and his excellent staff who put together this Private Members' motion. I will be excused for mentioning one member of that group, Ms Maureen McGrath, for her excellent work and contribution at all times in helping with these types of motions. This is a very important issue if we consider what happened last week at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.

The country was appalled by the seeping arrogance of some of the people who were called by politicians, in good faith, to give evidence and answer questions. These people are receiving extraordinary sums of money. The people cannot and will not stand for a situation where an individual in his early fifties - I will not name somebody who is not here to speak for themselves - is on a pension of €500,000 per year for the rest of life, particularly in these times. It just does not make sense. It is neither right nor fair. It is immoral. The people who received millions of euro in golden handshakes were the orchestrators and were deeply involved in the downfall of this country. Their thanks were handshakes of millions of euro.

This is at a time when I and other Deputies, including Government backbenchers and Ministers, are dealing with people every day who are trying to provide home help with reduced hours to take care of people's personal needs. They are being told they will be paid for only half an hour for tasks that might take an hour and a half. They are working for nothing for the rest of the time. Those people are taking care of the elderly in society and keeping them in their own homes. I am passionate about this issue because I believe in it. However, those people are doing that work for nothing, yet when they turn on the television or pick up the newspaper they see these other people getting millions of euro in pensions and golden handshakes. It is immoral.

I wish to mention one name, and he will not mind me mentioning it.

Mr. Sean Quinn is in jail tonight. When I think about some of the people who are outside and walking our streets as they enjoy these vast pensions, it is totally wrong and unjust.

The Deputy has run out of time so that will prevent him from giving in to the temptation of mentioning more names.

Thank you. This motion is sound and genuinely motivated. It is motivated by the crisis people are facing in their family homes. Young couples were led to take out large mortgages and borrow amounts of money which they could never repay by bankers who have now fled the banking system with their golden handshakes and massive pensions. However, these young, lovely couples are left struggling to raise their families. They honour the debt they owe every month to the best of their ability, but it is at a desperate social cost to themselves.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“takes note of the Government’s leadership and strong policy of remuneration restraint and sustainable pension reforms since taking office in March 2011, and in particular:

— acknowledges that all members of the Government accepted reductions in their pay on their first day in office;

— notes that this pay reduction will reduce the pensions paid to members of this Government on retirement;

— agrees that the pension levy stamp duty introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2011 is a timely and legitimate source of revenue to the Exchequer;

— notes the significant reduction in public service pensions in payment before end-February this year introduced by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010;

— notes the reduction in public service pensions coming into payment since end-February this year that results from the pay cut introduced by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009;

— welcomes and supports major pension reforms brought forward by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, including:

— legislating for the single public service pension scheme;

— widening the application of pension abatement and service caps across the public service; and

— introducing a higher top rate of the public service pension reduction for those in receipt of public service pensions above €100,000;

— recognises that pensions are deferred income and are property rights; and

— acknowledges that the general public policy in the financial emergency measures legislation, including the pension-related deduction, pay cuts and the pension reduction, is to reduce, in a reasonable and proportionate way, public service expenditure and in particular that the pension reduction applies in a tapered and progressive manner to public service pensioners.”

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We are all aware that large pensions paid from the public purse cause a great deal of concern to our citizens. At a time of severe retrenchment, it is very difficult for people to accept that substantial pensions can be justified. However, it would be utterly wrong for people to believe or accept the premise that this Government has not addressed this issue since coming into office. Decisions to further reduce substantial pensions have been taken and this issue remains under constant review by the Government. Decisions can only be taken on a legal and constitutional basis. Devising pension policy based on the latest headline is a recipe for disaster.

Earlier the Taoiseach spoke about the moral responsibility on those former CEOs within the banking sector who retired on exceptional pensions.

They have no morals.

This Government has never defended extraordinarily high pensions in this regard but because of contractual decisions taken by the previous Government, the scope for change in this area is very limited.

They did not fulfil their contracts.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. It is a basic rule of common decency and manners. I did not interrupt the Deputy so he should give me the chance to speak.

We stand over our decisions since coming into office in February 2011, and any fair-minded person would see that substantial progress has been made in reducing the public sector pay and pensions bill. I will put a number of facts about this on the record. First, public service pay, as well as that of commercial CEOs, has been reduced and capped. This reduces pension costs into the future. Second, public service pensions in payment have been reduced, by a public service pension cut, which now has a 20% top rate for those pensions over €100,000. This was not mentioned in the debate although it was introduced by this Government. Third, future pension costs have been reduced and brought into a more sustainable trajectory by way of the single public service pension scheme. This was put in place by the Dáil but, again, was not mentioned in the debate tonight.

What must be understood from the outset is that pensions are deferred remuneration, so their eventual cost is linked to pay. In this regard, the Government has imposed a policy of strong pay reduction and restraint since taking office in March 2011. Over €2.5 billion has been saved to date in the totality of public service pay and pensions over the past three years. The total bill peaked at nearly €20 billion in 2009 but, with the pension levy deducted, today it stands at €17.5 billion. While many talk about cuts in public service pay and pensions in the tens of millions, this Government has achieved cuts in the billions. This is frequently ignored by our opponents, as occurred tonight. It is part of their misinformation.

The Government decided at its first meeting in office to reduce the salaries of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State with immediate effect. All members of the Government accepted reductions in their pay on their first day in office. The Taoiseach's pay rate was reduced to €200,000 and a pro rata cut was applied to the pay of Ministers, Ministers of State and related office holders. The reductions were accepted on a voluntary basis by all relevant office holders pending passage of the necessary legislation. That legislation was passed.

Pay expectations for higher paid public servants must be set appropriately and in line with the resources available to the State. To ensure that is the case, since June 2011 a general pay ceiling of €200,000 applies to appointments to higher positions across the public service. That policy brings pay levels at senior levels in the public service in line with those the Government accepted for itself. A voluntary waiver of up to 15% was introduced for post holders with salaries in excess of the relevant pay ceilings and this received a positive response. In the Civil Service, new pay rates were introduced for Secretaries General of Departments. A maximum rate of €200,000 now applies for Secretary General, level 1, which represents a 30% reduction on September 2008 rates. All new appointments to the public service are being made in line with the policy adopted by the Government on pay ceilings.

The gross annual salaries applicable to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, Ministers and Ministers of State have been reduced. The gross salaries are inclusive of the pay element for a Deputy, amounting to €92,672. The effect of these reductions is that the salary of the Taoiseach has been reduced by nearly 30% since December 2009. In the same period, the salaries of the Tánaiste and Ministers have been reduced by nearly 25% and the salary of a Minister of State by almost 16%. What is frequently missed is that these are all gross salaries. Effectively, people are bringing home half their salary. I accept they are very substantial salaries but people are taking home half because of tax and contributions to their pensions. Deputies, despite the play acting and histrionics, know this is the case. Extraordinary hypocrisy is shown by people who have access to in excess of €40,000 per year, none of which is accounted for by way of a report they give to the public.

The rest of us, who are involved in political parties, must account for ourselves but others do not. It is an extraordinary level of hypocrisy.

Fine Gael received €4.4 million.

Nothing is stopping Deputies Healy or Mattie McGrath from returning the sum of money as proposed in the motion. If they want to do so, they can return the sum of money. Then, I will regard them as serious.

In June 2011, the Government took two significant steps on the payment arrangements of CEOs in commercial State bodies. It introduced a general pay ceiling of €250,000 in the case of newly appointed CEOs in commercial State companies, with reductions to similar appointees in such companies with lesser pay ceiling levels. It sought voluntary reductions in the remuneration levels of those already serving CEOs with salaries in excess of €250,000. Furthermore, it is Government policy that, in general, newly appointed CEOs are to be placed on the minimum point of the relevant salary range as opposed to the practice of assigning such personnel to around the mid range of such salary scales. The position in respect of already serving CEOs is that, for contractual reasons, the imposition of reduced salary rates could not be unilaterally proceeded with by the Government. However, incumbent CEOs in the commercial State companies with a salary in excess of the general salary ceiling of €250,000 per annum were requested to make a voluntary waiver of salary of 15%, or to waive a lesser amount if the application of the full 15% reduction would have brought their salary below €250,000. All seven incumbent CEOs whose salaries were, at the time of the waiver request, in excess of €250,000 agreed to the waivers.

The system of performance-related award schemes for the CEOs of commercial State companies, whether newly appointed or serving incumbents, has been suspended. This Government said it would stop the runaway train of pay that existed within the upper echelons of the commercial semi-State sector. We said we would do it and we have done so.

It is important to be clear on what is involved in reducing pensions in payment. In this context I intend to set out some of the recent history and background to this issue. The previous Government decided to reduce public service pensions. We are in agreement that it was a painful but necessary step to take, given the state of the public finances. The measure secures annual savings estimated at €100 million and applies to over 130,000 pensioners. The cuts are tapered to mitigate the effect on the lowest level of pension income and are progressive in nature.

That is not the case.

Can I give the Deputy an example? For the first €12,000 there is no reduction; for those receiving between €12,000 and €24,000, the reduction is 6%; for those receiving between €24,000 and €60,000, the reduction is 9%; for those between €60,000 and €100,000, the reduction is 12%; and anyone with a pension over €100,000, has seen a reduction of a further 20%, a decision brought about by this Government and presumably opposed by the Opposition. Legislation introduced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform last year to add the 20% rate for those in receipt of amounts over €100,000 came into effect from 1 January 2012. The Government is proud to inform the House of the measure.

In contrast to the proportionate and tapered pension reduction measures, a much heavier reduction in public service pensions, levied, for example, on those above €100,000 is sometimes proposed. That would save limited amounts of money and would potentially affect only a small number of public service pensioners. In this context, at the end of September, some 84 former civil servants and 28 former office holders or judges currently being paid by the Paymaster General were in receipt of pensions of over €100,000. Some 112 people are the substance of the motion tabled by the Opposition.

It is 112 too many.

Deputy Mattie McGrath supported the measures when he was in Fianna Fáil.

Of those 112 people, the Government has introduced a reduction of 20% on those in receipt of over €100,000. I ask fair-minded people to have regard to what we have done on this matter in our short time in office and to have regard to the small number of people it concerns.

We must show that our actions are fair, balanced and proportionate. Those who have most must bear the brunt of the adjustment, a point all our actions thus far have highlighted.

The Minister of State is codding himself.

The Oireachtas legislates within the Constitution and legal issues concerning property rights are important, in particular given the possibility of challenge. A pension is generally taken to be deferred income and therefore covered by the constitutional protections that apply to property and any move to reduce a pension in payment, even one based in statute law, needs to be comprehensively founded. Otherwise, the courts might find that a restriction, however it might be justified by the exigencies of the common good, amounts to an unjust attack by the State on the rights of individuals affected by the legislation in question. This point was recently highlighted in a case before Mr. Justice McMahon. I encourage Members to read the judgment and, specifically, the judge's remarks on what is determined as unjust. In broad terms, the courts will seek to ensure that a delimitation of property rights by the State is justified in the exigencies of the common good and does not amount to an unjust attack by the State on the rights of individuals affected by the legislation in question.

Reflecting constitutional rights and general public policy, the financial emergency measures legislation, including the pension-related deduction, the pay cuts, and the pension reduction, have sought to reduce public service expenditure in a reasonable and proportionate way. It is evident the pension reduction applies in a tapered and measured manner to all public service pensioners. The preambles to the 2010 legislation clearly situate the pension reduction in the context of the financial emergency. There are also significant safeguards built into the statute, including an annual report to the Houses of the Oireachtas in June each year by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin.

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 real contribution to the fiscal adjustment and would have to be designed in a similar fashion to the 2010 reduction. Particular care would have to be taken about any measure that applies to a relatively small number of former public servants.

Clearly, there is public concern about large pensions and the Government is also concerned. The Government has moved to address these concerns within the law and the Constitution. We have done so in a sensible, fair and balanced way in contrast to the top of the head response from people with extraordinary sums of money for which they are not accountable.

It is essential that what we do is seen to be fair and equitable if people are being asked to accept fairly serious reductions in benefits or services.

I refer the Minister of State to page 9.

A number of important reforms have occurred. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has announced significant reforms to the exit terms applying to new Secretaries General; all public servants, including the Judiciary, have had their pay reduced substantially and are also paying the pension-related deduction; for public servants retiring since February, the pension is based on reduced pay rates that, in turn, will give a lower rate of pension; the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012 contains provisions that widen the application of pension abatement and extends service caps across the public service; and the new single public service pension scheme introduces a system under which pensions are related to career average earnings rather than final exit points. Post-retirement increases in pension will also be linked to changes in the CPI rather than to salary increases given to equivalent grades. All these are clear signs that the Government is introducing sustainable and sensible reforms that will do much to ensure large pensions, which are a legacy of previous Governments that Deputy Mattie McGrath supported, are not a feature of our public service pension provision in future. Having regard to what we have done, any fair-minded person would see a fair attempt has been made. These matters are under constant review and we will ensure the balance is fully restored.

I welcome the opportunity to speak-----

On a point of order, reading the statement of the Minister of State-----

He is out of order.

I raise a point of order.

(Interruptions).

Deputy McGrath, you may ask a question.

Is Deputy Brian Hayes the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform?

That is not a point of order. He is out of order.

Deputy McGrath is asking a question, which I am allowing.

He is out of order.

Deputy McCarthy, please resume your seat.

For the record, he is out of order.

Deputy McGrath, you may ask a question briefly.

The front page of the script of the Minister's speech has the words, "Statement by Brian Hayes T.D., Minister for Public Service and Reform". Is that true or false?

That is not a question.

Is the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, the Minister with responsibility for the public service and reform? I thought it was the Minister, Deputy Howlin.

I am the Minister of State.

That is a weighty issue.

One would be forgiven for thinking there was an element of seriousness about this motion. Let me break down the signatories to the motion. A number of them are former members of Fianna Fáil, who visited more destruction on this country and society than the Black and Tans ever did.

They drove the economy into the ground. Some people who have the neck to put their names to this motion were members of that party when they did it, although I do not take from the genuine intentions of Deputy Seamus Healy and others. I know they are genuine.

There is, however, one signatory to this piece of political theatre whom I have never heard raise the issue of the retention of basic social welfare rates. In his weekly column for a right-wing newspaper, I have never seen him mention the household benefits package and how important it is to pensioners the length and breadth of the country, how the Administration exempted 330,000 people from the universal social charge or how the Government, in its first budget, restored the minimum wage. All of that is a foreign archaic language to those who were engaged in the adulation of the person who is most associated with Anglo Irish Bank that contributed to the collapse of the economy. They have a damned neck to put their names to the motion.

Let us look at what the Government has done since it came to office. The day the Cabinet was formed, on 11 March last year, it abolished State cars for Ministers. It sickens me to think the people who visited destruction on the economy were driven around in top-of-the-range black Mercedes cars. The Government reduced Ministers' pay and the salaries of the Taoiseach and Tánaiste. The Government abolished the allowance to vice chairmen of committees. That was €10,000 tax free, which was a legacy of the Bertie Ahern years. Another signatory could explain what went on during those years, because he went into the Tá lobby night after night to support him. The Government abolished the committee convenors and committee whips allowance. It halved the chairman's allowance and taxed and subjected the balance to the universal social charge, PRSI and a special pension subscription. The Government also capped the pay of CEOs in the public sector and took a range of measures, not least to hold a referendum to reduce the pay of members of the Judiciary. Some Members opposite who have signed the motion voted against that measure.

The Fianna Fáil and Green parties and some of their former fans, who did not stick around long enough to sign the party pledge because they knew they would not get back into the Dáil, visited a mess on Irish people and on Irish society. They brought in the EU, the IMF and the ECB. Now they are running around with this motion. If it were not so serious it would be laughable. Why do they not begin by handing back their €40,000? Every single one of them gets €40,000 tax free and they come in here lecturing us about those who are on social welfare. They do not mean it because they do not give a damn.

Just over 20 months ago, the Government inherited a country that had been wrecked by irresponsible behaviour and fiscal mismanagement. The previous Government narrowed the tax base, which meant the economic downturn led to a fiscal nightmare for the country. The previous Government engaged in a reckless massive increase in spending of the one-off proceeds generated by the property boom. The same boom has left many families burdened with debt and fearful for their future. Difficult issues were resolved not by reform, but by throwing money at them. This was particularly true with regard to pensions, including those of senior civil servants and politicians, often voted for by some of the people who signed this evening's motion.

I acknowledge that the intentions of the people who signed the motion are often well-meaning. I refer to the members of the United Left Alliance. At the heart of the motion, however, is a criticism of high levels of pay and pensions that are a direct result of people like Deputy Mattie McGrath voting for those increases over the course of the past 15 years.

How dare he sign tonight's motion when he tickled the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern's belly for 15 years at the cost of a lost generation. Shame on him.

I tickled no one's belly.

Deputy McGrath voted for increase upon increase to senior civil servants.

The Deputy's party wanted more.

He tickled Bertie's belly for 15 years. He implemented Fianna Fáil policy, yet he has put his name to a motion calling for the reversal of cuts of which he was the architect. He implemented those cuts over the course of the past 15 years. Shame on him.

I respect the good intentions of the United Left Alliance but I query the company they keep, including elements of right-wing politics, as referred to by Deputy McCarthy.

I do not keep their company.

Deputy Pringle should not flatter himself. I do not refer to him in that respect.

Deputy Ross refers in the motion only to pensions of public sector workers.

What about cuts to home help hours?

The motion makes no reference to the obscene pensions paid in the private sector, where salaries can be capped but multiples of that salary are paid into slush funds and pension funds availing of generous tax reliefs that Deputy McGrath designed.

Labour's way or Frankfurt's way.

I support the proposal that in the future there would be a situation where one-on-one ratio of bankers' pay to pensions would suffice with regard to remuneration. I would expect the United Left Alliance to support that proposal in the future.

Many voices on the right of politics, particularly that of Deputy Ross, are comfortable using the United Left Alliance to attack public service pay and pensions. The United Left Alliance is the vehicle of the right's attack on the public service.

Deputy Keaveney is a vehicle of the blue shirts.

I ask the United Left Alliance to think twice about supporting cuts in the public service. They are the pawns of those on the right wing. They are fools.

I know Deputy McGrath's agenda. He tickled the belly of the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern for 15 years. For 15 years he was his two-legged bidet and now he has the cheek to come into the House and sign this motion.

The right way to address this issue is to impose significant levies on those who are well paid in the public and private sectors. I favour a levy of at least 10% on all pensions over €100,000 graduating to a 25% levy on pensions in excess of the pensions of half a million euro, which Deputy McGrath designed.

Why does Deputy Keaveney not bring forward a motion to that effect? He is chairman of his party, for the time being anyway.

Deputy McGrath signed off on a pension of €500,000 for Mr. Richie Boucher. Some of the people who proposed this motion have good intentions, but the measures proposed will not solve anything.

Deputy McGrath comes in her week upon week, with Ernie and Bert politics. This is "Sesame Street" for him, but he is the architect of the destruction of a society. He has tickled the belly of a former prime minister of this country.

Deputy Keaveney has a good job tickling Enda's belly.

Deputy McGrath's footsteps have gone up and down the corridor, cutting deals at the cost of public service pensions and vulnerable people. He voted for a cut in the minimum wage. He has a cheek to talk about a threshold of decency.

This is the voice of Labour backbenchers. James Connolly must be turning in his grave.

Where was decency when he voted with the former Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, and his ilk for cuts in minimum rates of pay? He has more cheek than the backside of a retired jockey. God bless this country.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue of major concern to most. We are talking about pensions, but I am starting from a different perspective. A pension should be earned before it is received. Under most pension arrangements in both the public and private sectors, a person can forfeit his or her pension for gross misconduct in the course of his or her job. This issue should be examined in further detail. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform recently introduced the single public service pension scheme, in which he included an amendment whereby a person proved to have caused a financial loss to his or her employer could have his or her pension reduced by the amount of the loss. That provision was designed to catch persons guilty of fraud or theft. I also tabled an amendment, to which the Minister was receptive, but it was not part of his brief to accept it on that occasion, whereby a person who had not performed his or her duties would also forfeit his or her pension. I was thinking of senior bankers and regulators who had done a great deal of harm to their organisations. Under the narrow definition of the single public service pension scheme, they may not have caused a financial loss to their organisations, but persons in such organisations should be subject to their pensions being forfeited or reduced. Those who did a gross disservice to the organisations for which they worked did not earn their pensions, as they had not performed their functions and duties and fulfilled their contracts of employment. There should be an mechanism whereby an employer could go to the courts for an independent adjudication as to whether a person had earned his or her pension. The Government's amendment to the motion mentions property rights, but these rights would apply to the payments the people concerned had actually made to the pension scheme.

The debate was very strong and vociferous in the last few minutes. Deputies were quick to point out what the signatories to the motion had not included in it, but I point out to those same Members that, on foot of the single public service pension scheme, the Minister signed a statutory instrument the other day. When I received a copy as a member of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, I looked at it because I had no notion of what it meant because it was connected to a commencement notice. I had to go to Houses of the Oireachtas staff who contacted the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to find out what it was all about. They came back to me to explain that it did not always produce an explanatory memorandum for statutory instruments. The outcome of the statutory instrument is that the Minister has abolished the exemption whereby a person in receipt of two separate pensions could avail of an exemption of €12,000 in respect of both pensions. A retired nurse on a pension of €24,000 in receipt of a pension of €12,000 in respect of her deceased spouse who was also a public servant, giving a combined pension payment of €36,000, as a result of the new measure introduced by the Labour Party Minister in the last few days, has seen the pension levy increase from €720 to €1,800 per annum, an increase of 150%. At the same time, Government speakers say this is all about proportionality and that we cannot single out individuals and proprietary rights. The Minister was well able to single out a small number of retired public servants on modest pensions by increasing their pension levy by 150%. That is a typical example of a retired public sector worker whose partner iwho was also a public servant is deceased. That person has seen the pension levy increased by 150% without one word being said about the matter. There is an article in today's edition of the Irish Independent outlining how 98 medical academics in our universities are earning more than €200,000 per annum, a number of whom are on more than €250,000. What will their pensions be like? I would like to see the Minister tackle that issue in the same way as he has tackled the poor retired nurse who is trying to survive on a small pension.

That brings me to Fianna Fáil's amendment to the motion. We propose, as part of the FEMPI legislation, that a specific legislative provision be introduced for retired senior banking executives to address their outrageous pensions. AIB stated today it had written to 15 such pensioners. I understand the Minister has no qualms about defending their property rights, but what about the property rights of all the other poor workers in AIB, 2,500 of whom took redundancy recently? Their pensions have been changed from defined benefits to defined contributions. There has been a fundamental change in terms of how much they will receive in their pensions. The Minister has no problem presiding over changes to the pension arrangements for AIB bank officials, but he is afraid of the former senior executives.

That brings me to the situation the Minister for Finance outlined on Sunday. I have great regard for the Minister, but I am worried about him. He made two statements on Sunday. He reaffirmed, as mentioned on the front page of the Sunday Independent, that he was powerless to act on the issue, but then a few hours later he announced he had established a review of bankers' remuneration. Why is he carrying out a review of their remuneration if he has already told us before it starts that he is powerless to act on the findings of any such review? I was shocked to hear him say that.

On the levy chargeable on senior public service pensions, as part of Fianna Fáil's budget proposals last year, we proposed that there be a levy of 30% on any sum over €100,000. The Government settled on a figure of 20%. That figure of 30% would have been in addition to the approximate figure of 50% in respect of PAYE, PRSI and USC payable. We said if the figure could not be cut, at least there should be an equivalent levy made up taxes and charges of 80% on amounts over €100,000. Such a provision should be extended to the banking sector as an interim measure.

The property rights issue is quoted by the Government on every occasion. However, it had no problem last July under the guise of a jobs initiative with robbing the private pension funds of Ireland of €2 billion over the next four years by taking a figure of 0.6% from the retirement funds people had built up. They have property rights, but that money was taken from them and their pensions have been cut with no complaint from the Government benches. When we talk about high pay, however, that argument is wheeled out. It is time everyone was treated equally.

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis agam cúpla rud a rá faoi seo anocht. Listening to the earlier contributions, I was very disappointed by the tenor of the debate. The usual slagging across the Chamber was taking place. I heard references to Ministers being driven around in black Mercedes, but very few of us were driven in a Mercedes, rather we were driven in the cars Ministers are still driven in. The owners might be different, but the cars are not substantially different. I drive a car now similar to the one I had as a Minister.

I have a biased view about Garda drivers. I am open to criticism, but the circumstances justify it. The Garda drivers we used had been trained in advanced driving techniques. We were doing 120,000 kms a year which, over eight or nine years, works out at more than 1 million kms. The risk of an accident was always high. I must confess to being biased on this issue because if I was not being driven by an absolute expert driver who had undertaken an advanced courses civilian drivers do not undertake, I would not be standing in the Dáil tonight because I would have been killed on the road outside Killarney.

The slagging matches are great fun, but there also serious issues. The House would be better engaged in focusing on the issues involved than the endless slagging that takes place here, particularly from the Government backbenchers because they have nothing better to say. There is an issue and we should deal with it, as Fianna Fáil has suggested, in a comprehensive and open way.

If we put our minds to it and if we were interested in resolving this problem we would refer this matter to an all-party committee, as we did for example when Sinn Féin tabled a motion on oil and gas. We eventually ended up with a report agreed by Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil on how we should tackle our oil and gas problems.

I accept there are questions about the inequality of wages. I believe this started in the private sector where the gap in wages between top executives and the low paid at the bottom got wider and wider. Benchmarking, which was supported by all sorts of people in this House, including so-called left-wing Deputies, resulted in a loss following the pattern of the private sector. There were reasons for that, as the Minister of State will be aware. Given that people from the kind of profession in which he was involved before he became a Member of these Houses - attorneys of a high-level, doctors, etc. - can earn so much in the private sector it is not possible to attract them to work in the public service for normal public sector wages. We need a proper debate on all the connections in this area to see if we can come up with something that is fairer than the present regime.

The same considerations clearly apply to pensions where, after 40 years in the public service, one would get half of one's wages and 1.5 times one's salary as a lump sum - that was uniform across the system. The only difference between that and the terms applied for a Deputy was that it was figured out - I believe with justification - that it is nearly impossible to last in this House for 40 years, with the exception of the Taoiseach who is pretty close to that. Therefore there was a shorter timescale, even in the review of public service pensions, allowing for a full pension for a Deputy because it was felt that Deputies had to keep jumping the ditch time and again, and could be thrown out without any notice. It was felt that it would be nearly impossible to do 40 years here, particularly as most people are first elected with some experience behind them. Similarly, Ministers were required to have ten years as a Cabinet Minister before getting the full pension. It was paid at the rate of 60% but I believe, as with every other pension, it should be 50%. Perhaps the time required should be more than ten years. However, if one looked at the record of ministerial office and counted the number of Ministers who managed to complete ten years as a Cabinet Minister, or 20 years equivalent as Minister of State or a combination of both, one would find the numbers are very small. Considerably fewer people achieved that than the number of teams that won all-Ireland's.

The Government should agree to take seriously this motion on pensions and, accepting that it is a complicated and interconnected issue, amend the motion in such a way that it would be referred to an all-party committee of the House for a detailed examination involving the calling of witnesses. The committee would then investigate all of the issues and not take politicians in isolation because I believe our pay should be connected to some public service grade. I have always believed that a Minister should get the same pay as a Secretary General. If Ministers are overpaid then Secretaries General are way overpaid because Ministers put in much longer hours and are at much greater risk of losing their jobs. We should complete a comprehensive, agreed review. Instead of shouting at each other across the Chamber and making headlines in newspapers, which we will do by shouting, we should seriously engage in this issue and see if we can achieve consensus. I believe that if we approached this systematically and looked at all the angles of the issue, as we did on the issue of oil exploration, we would find considerably more agreement than we would manage in this debate. I suspect that level of agreement might not suit certain people. However for those of us who are serious about politics and serious about serving in the public interest, I believe it would serve politics.

I voluntarily gave up the severance pay for a Minister and am now earning considerably less than I would be if I had retired. In other words my two pensions would have been considerably greater than my present salary and furthermore, my pension will now be smaller because I stayed on here. I am therefore working for minus money or actually paying to work. I am happy to do that because money has never been an objective in my life. I accept it is good to have a salary - I have to live like everybody else, but it has never been the primary objective of working. I have always worked for causes, for co-operatives and so on.

For the good of future generations we need to stop talking nonsense that Deputies should be doing their job as a charity. Deputies need to earn their living and pay the bills like everybody else. To attract the spectrum of people into this House, we need to pay the going rate for the job which is agreed to be the salary of a principal officer. It is 100 hours a week. It makes no difference to me personally and will never make any difference to me now. I am too far on in my life and my career for it to make any difference for me. If I wanted more money I could simply pack in the job. We do not want to go back to the 19th century where the only people who could afford to be in politics were those with enough private income that they did not need to live from the income of being a politician. For many of us this is the only household income or by far the primary household income on which we live. If we do that we will find that people will face up to reality. We will bring some reality to this debate and could bring about the very necessary reforms that we need, not only in public service wages and pensions, but also in the disparity between the low paid and the high paid in the private sector.

Tá sé tráthúil go bhfuilimid ag déileáil leis an cheist seo faoi phinsin ach is trua gur rún lag é seo. Fillfidh mé ar na fáthanna leis sin.

Aontaím le cuid amháin den rún, an líne dheireanach, a dhéanann iarracht srian a chur ar na pinsin agus íocaíochtaí oll-fláithiúla atá ag Airí, Taoisigh agus ceannairí bainc agus a leithéid siúd atá liostaithe sa rún. Níl an rún láidir go leor, níl sé maith go leor agus ní aontaím le cuid de. Ní fheicim conas is féidir leo siúd gur sóisialaithe iad glacadh le faoiseamh cánach do phinsin fad is atá easpa ann dóibh siúd a bheidh ag brath ar phinsean amach anseo, ach go háirithe an faoiseamh cánach atá ann dóibh ar an ráta is airde cáin faoi láthair.

This is a weak motion that contains very little. It merely calls for us to stop paying the grossly over generous pensions to a relatively narrow category of people. If it is confined to that, it will achieve very little. While I might sound like Government Deputy, I am a socialist and I cannot support a motion that calls for the retention of tax relief at the highest rate for private pensions. At the very least we should standardise that or get rid of tax relief on private pensions because any tax relief is tax foregone. There are times when for the public good that is what should be done. At a time of crisis we need to review tax reliefs and consider whether the tax that is foregone could be put to better use, as my party believes it could. At the very least we should be standardising the tax relief and ultimately considering whether that is the best way for the State to intervene in the future pensions of people.

The motion should have gone much further. It could have called for steps to deal with issues that were highlighted in last month's private pensions report and the rip-off of people, some of them on very low pay, who invested in a private pensions encouraged by the previous Government and now being encouraged by this Government. Yet, the charges are not transparent.

Up to 30% is being charged on some pension pots. As I stated, the motion could also have properly dealt with the tax reliefs. I find it strange that members of the People Before Profit - United Left Alliance are supporting this motion, which defends these tax reliefs. The Economic and Social Research Institute report entitled Pension Policy: New Evidence on Key Issues states that the top 20% of earners are the beneficiaries of 80% of all pension tax relief, which says it all for me and those people with whom I stand. That is, I believe, an abuse of public policy.

Tax reliefs on pension savings are inherently regressive. The more disposable income one has available to save the more money the Government gives one in the form of tax relief. This is similar to the Special Incentives Savings Scheme, which was used by former Deputy Charlie McCreevy, to help the rich in our society. Meanwhile the State pension and the associated benefits on which the majority of older people depend are under threat. The Government says it cannot afford these basics. How, then, can it possibly justify the continuation of tax relief for private pensions? According to the latest actuarial review the expected deficit of the Social Insurance Fund for 2012 is €1.8 billion. There are ways of addressing this in the short term, one of which I have already put forward in respect of tax relief. The other way is to get people back to work and halt emigration.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share