I wish to share time with Deputies Conlon, White, O'Rourke and Treacy.
Private Members’ Business
Ministerial Pensions: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Richard Bruton on Wednesday, 5 May 2010:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to introduce legislation to cause, with immediate effect, the cessation of the payment of Ministerial pensions to members of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"—takes note of the Government's actions to deal with the economic crisis;
recognises the budgetary measures taken by the Government to stabilise the public finances;
notes the reduction in the number of Ministers of State and the reduction in staffing of Ministers' offices;
acknowledges the extensive efforts of the Government to secure solidarity among the social partners;
recognises the measures taken in the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act 2009 which reduces the ministerial pensions of sitting members of either House of the Oireachtas by 25 per cent and provides that payment of such pensions to sitting members will cease after the next general election;
notes the Attorney General's advice that the immediate and total abolition of pensions for a single category of pensioner would be unconstitutional; and
notes that many sitting members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament and others have made a gift of their ministerial pensions to the Minister for Finance for the general benefit of the Exchequer."
—(Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We are living in very difficult times and very few families are living as comfortably as they did 12 or 24 months ago, either through changes in employment or reduced incomes. Most families are finding it difficult. Whether a party is in Government or in Opposition, strong leadership is required.
I understand Deputy Lucinda Creighton was in possession at the conclusion of last night's debate and she had ten minutes remaining. The Deputy will come in immediately after her.
Excusez-moi, s'il vous plaît.
I am impressed at how anxious Deputy Power is to speak on this very important motion. I appreciate having the opportunity to make my small contribution to this debate. This is an extremely important issue and follows on from the point I made on the Order of Business about the urgency and the impetus required to restore some degree of public confidence in the political system and integrity into political life. Everybody in the House is aware that politics has been damaged from the perspective of the Government and the Opposition. The public has lost confidence in politics and is cynical. In many instances people are rightly cynical and disappointed because they feel let down by the political system. It is essential that we restore some degree of moral authority.
In the context of our current budgetary position and the fiscal corrections which will inevitably have to take place this year, the impetus to achieve some degree of moral authority for the Government and politics in general becomes even more pressing. We are all aware that we face a very difficult budget again at the end of this year on top of last year's budget which saw €4 billion in savings. We expect similar savings to be proposed by the Government in the coming budget in December or perhaps sooner.
For that very difficult pill to be swallowed by the public, it expects and deserves some leadership at Government level. It would make that bitter pill slightly more acceptable. The Government cannot afford to apply double standards to this and that is why this Private Members' motion is so important. People can see that politicians are well paid, which is correct, and Ministers are particularly well paid. I do not disagree with that. To see people in positions where they are very well paid with taxpayers' money and simultaneously drawing down pensions while serving in office is unacceptable. I have always found this unacceptable and not just because the issue has been whipped up by the media in recent weeks. Since I have participated in politics, I considered this unacceptable.
I am pleased we have reached a point where the issue is now in the public eye and under the media microscope. The Fine Gael proposals are very simple and modest and despite what the Government has said, they are constitutional. It is important to make that point. This is a House of Parliament, which is designed as a Legislature with the capacity and authority to legislate. There is no constitutional case to be made against the Legislature legislating on political remuneration. I reject out of hand any suggestion on the part of the Government that the proposal to stop or prohibit ministerial pensions being paid to serving Members is unconstitutional.
We must go beyond the proposals before the House today. The Government must legislate to prevent all public pension payments to Oireachtas Members. Any Member of these Houses in receipt of a public pension — whether as a former member of the Garda Síochána or as a teacher — should not continue to receive it while drawing down a public salary. That is not to say that people have not legitimately accumulated and properly contributed to pensions for retirement. They are entitled to such pensions, although not while drawing a significant salary in this House as a Member or as a Minister. Those payments must be also frozen. I am conscious that not everyone will agree with me. People on both sides of the House would have difficulty with it because they believe they have legitimate expectations. There is a legal argument in that respect, but there is no moral argument. Anyone drawing down a salary of €100,000 plus should not be in receipt of a public pension. It is not good enough to say that people should voluntarily forgo pension payments. Legislation needs to be introduced to prevent the payments for serving Members. When they retire, they could receive their pension payments just as other retired public servants are entitled to do.
We need to stand up to some of the criticism of politicians and to the media hype concerning politicians' legitimate salaries. This is an important point. The perception is that we, as Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, have taken no pay cuts and have not been affected in any way by the measures introduced since finding ourselves in recession almost two years ago. This is not correct. Every Deputy has been subject to the pension and income levy and all of the other levies applied to the public sector. It is right and proper that we accept our fair share of the pain and the blame.
The opinion that politicians should not be paid to a reasonable standard is wrong. Reverting to a situation in which politics is only possible for the rich would be a dangerous prospect. People such as me and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, who entered politics at a young age and did not have vast empires or the opportunity to earn large sums over many years beforehand, would have been prevented from entering politics. It is important to point out that politics must be accessible to people from all walks of life, that they should be able to put their names forward for election and that they should have a prospect of reasonable remuneration upon election, given the opportunities they will necessarily forfeit. Politics should be representative and this House should be representative of the general population. The more we can reflect normal society in the Chamber, the more legitimate and accountable political life will be.
Anyone in receipt of a significant salary in the House, be he or she from any sector of public life, should not be entitled to draw a public pension. This is an important principle that we need to apply in the House and across the public sector. Yesterday, I submitted a series of parliamentary questions to every Department, the responses to which were, to put it mildly, less than accountable and transparent. I asked every Department the number of former public servants who had been appointed or employed as political advisers, spin doctors, etc. to Ministers and Departments. Bar the Department of Foreign Affairs, every Department refused to answer this simple question. If we are discussing governance in an age of transparency and openness, the openness that applies to Ministers and other elected representatives should apply to those employed to advise them and perform their media work, namely, the spin doctors and handlers in the background. As we are all aware, quite a number of these people employed in various Departments are retired from other walks of life in the public sector. Such people should be accountable. Many of them are better paid than Deputies. If they are in receipt of major public salaries, they should not be drawing down pensions from previous public employment. It is a double standard and inconsistent to suggest that these principles should apply to Deputies and Ministers, but not to spin doctors and handlers. Every Department should reassess its position in this respect.
I apologise for getting off to a false start earlier.
I thank the Deputy for his co-operation.
They use that in racing terms.
As I informed the Ceann Comhairle, I will be sharing my time.
The speakers will be Deputies Conlon, O'Rourke and Treacy and the Minister of State, Deputy White.
The majority of families are finding the going difficult. Whether it is due to a lack of employment, reduced incomes or so on, they are feeling the pinch. Whether one is in government or opposition, strong leadership is required. It is important that Deputies, in our actions and whatever words we utter, be sincere and responsible. We are in a privileged position and it is important to treat it in that way. In these difficult times, it is also important that we give the people hope and that we make the House and the discussions held in it relevant to the people who put us here in the first place.
In dealing with the motion before the House, we should remember 10 October 2008 when Deputy Kenny, as Leader of the Opposition, held a pre-budget press conference. He was flanked that day by Deputies Bruton and O'Donnell. Obviously without any consultation, he announced that he had written to the Paymaster General asking for a 5% pay cut. This was done with no consultation within his party.
It is called leadership. The Deputy might not be familiar with the term.
Maybe it is, but the Deputy should let me finish.
When I asked for it, Deputy Kenny called it pompous nonsense one week later.
Deputy Kenny got word that the Government's intention was for the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to announce on 14 October a pay cut for Ministers. Wanting to be the first out of the traps, Deputy Kenny decided he would go for 5%.
That is not true.
Deputy Seán Power without interruption.
I will read it for Deputy English.
I must defend my leader.
Deputy Kenny only did that after I called for it, when he called it pompous nonsense.
On 11 October, The Irish Times wrote: “Afterwards Mr. Kenny was heard to say to his colleagues: ‘Sorry to land you in that there.’” It also wrote: “Out of seven senior figures available for comment last night, only three said they would follow the leader’s example.”
What is the Deputy trying to say? I am missing his point.
That type of knee-jerk reaction is typical of what the country does not need, but it is what we are dealing with again today. The issue of current Members receiving ministerial pensions has often been discussed in recent years. Some Members in this and the Upper House decided to forgo their pensions while they were still in receipt of Dáil or Seanad salaries. In a number of cases, this was done quietly and with little fuss. Following the appointment of Máire Geoghegan-Quinn as a European Commissioner, the issue returned to centre stage. The focus was not solely on her, but also on many former Ministers who were still Members of this House or the Seanad. In many respects, they were pressurised into making hasty decisions.
Whether in newspapers or on the radio, this issue got considerable coverage. On Tuesday of last week, Deputy Kenny rose in the House and stated:
Today, the Fine Gael Party has published a Bill that would immediately terminate the payment of ministerial pensions to serving Members of the Oireachtas. My challenge to the Taoiseach is to accept the Fine Gael Bill and thereby put an end to this practice for once and for all, in the interests of all concerned. The relentless pursuit of individuals could then finally be dealt. If this proposal is not accepted, I intend to place our Bill before the Dáil during next week's Private Members' business...
I have not seen this Bill anywhere. Has anyone seen it?
The motion before the House is typical of Deputy Kenny. It is a knee-jerk reaction. Deputy Kenny says the popular thing — what he thinks the people want to hear.
If the Deputy recalls, Deputy Kenny first commented on this issue some months ago.
Where is the Bill which, as he informed the House last week, he proposes to introduce? Deputy Kenny was definite that such as Bill would be forthcoming.
Deputy Kenny has such a Bill.
If that is the case, Deputy Kenny must be keeping it to himself. It is his little secret. That is not the type of leadership the country needs or deserves. It is obvious that Deputy Kenny cannot differentiate between what the country needs and what it wants.
Members have dealt with this matter in their own way. A great deal of attention has focused on former Ministers, most of whom have taken action. There are still a few individuals who have yet to make decisions. In many respects, the debate on this motion is a non-event. The debate we were promised last week has not emerged and instead we have been presented with this motion.
The Minister for Finance has outlined the Government's position in respect of this matter. It is important to note that we took action in a number of areas following the decision of 14 October 2008 under which Ministers agreed to a reduction in their salaries. Deputy Creighton outlined the changes that have been introduced in respect of Deputies' salaries and it is also worth noting that the expenses regime has also changed to a significant degree. It was important that such changes were made. There is little point in our pontificating to ordinary people and asking them to make sacrifices if we are not prepared to take the lead in this regard. I accept Deputy Creighton's point that it is vital to make the conditions attaching to membership of the Dáil sufficiently attractive in order that good people might be encouraged to become Deputies.
The motion before the House is pointless and serves little purpose. There are many more important issues which could have been dealt with. I am disappointed Fine Gael decided to waste an opportunity to tackle one of these and instead chose to move this motion on ministerial pensions.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter. Like many other Members, in 2007 I ran for election for the first time. I was honoured to be asked to put myself forward and I was equally honoured to be elected. My motivation in seeking election had nothing to do with money. I already had a good, secure and pensionable job with which I was happy. My motivation then — it remains the same now — revolved around a desire to assist people and represent them at national level to the best of my abilities. Like Deputy Seán Power, I consider it a privilege and an honour to be a Member of this House. When I was elected I had no idea of the level of salary I would receive.
Since the 2007 election, things have changed dramatically. Unemployment is rising, there are difficulties with the banks and we are in the midst of the worst economic recession the country has faced. Everyone, without exception, is feeling the pinch. Families have made sacrifices and for many, getting by on a daily basis represents a major challenge. Deputies have also made sacrifices. The media and members of the public do not appear to be aware of this. As Deputy Creighton stated, we were also subjected to the pension levy, our expenses have been reduced, our increments and allowances for committee work have been abolished and the allowances for chairing committees have been halved. In addition, the income levy introduced this year means that our permanent salaries have been reduced.
Like all other workers, we have played our part. I am not making a song and dance about that fact and I am not stating that we should not have accepted the changes that were made. We need to continue to show leadership. All I am doing is placing the facts on record.
I agree that the issue of ministerial pensions should be debated. However, it should be discussed in this House in a reasoned and balanced manner and not on the airwaves or in the print media. Some thought and consideration must be given to the individuals involved and their personal circumstances. No one knows what circumstances might obtain in another individual's family life or in his or her home.
Many Members have already made a voluntary gift of their pensions to the State. They did so in the absence of any populist headlines or fanfare. I wish to acknowledge that fact and also the contribution these people have made to the Exchequer. I listened to the contribution by the Minister for Finance and I must acknowledge that he considered every possible option in respect of ministerial pensions. However, he was advised by the Attorney General that it was not possible to coerce people into surrendering such pensions. It would be foolhardy of any Government to ignore legal advice. The Attorney General stated that to end pension payments for people who have clear rights to such pensions would be to discriminate against them and would also be unconstitutional. The Government has legislated, in a reasoned and proportionate way, to reduce ministerial pensions now and to eliminate them following the next general election.
If I were a very wealthy woman — I am not — and could come to work in the House each day but collect no salary and perhaps even make a financial contribution as I came through the front door, would people be happy? What message would it send to the public that only wealthy individuals have an entitlement to represent the people in this House or that only the former could perform a legislative function? That would be a dreadful message to send out. Everyone has a right to aspire to hold political offices if that is what he or she wishes to do. If only the wealthy were in a position to be Members of the House, that would be to the detriment of political life. I, for one, would not be a Member in such circumstances.
Every Member of this House works extremely hard. It is only when one works here among other elected representatives that one sees how hard people work. I am of the view that every Member of the House has integrity and possesses a genuine desire to make a contribution to society and to political life. Members are decent people who want to do good for those they represent. In recent months, however, there has been a lowering of the tone in respect of political life. It is sad that politicians and politics are being demeaned. What have we done to ourselves?
I recently saw a headline in a local newspaper which stated that I was in receipt of a six-figure pension. That was news to me and I was startled when my husband inquired with regard to where I was hiding all the money. I will not be entitled to a pension until I reach the age of 68. If people in the print media are going to run with a story, will they please ensure that their facts are correct? If they get the facts wrong, that does nothing to aid the cause of Members.
I am extremely saddened by the fact that Members appear to have lost all respect for each other during the wider debate on this matter. That is most regrettable.
Mo bhuíochas do na comhghleacaithe a thug deis dom a bheith páirteach sa dhíospóireacht seo.
I welcome the decision — taken less than a week ago — of Fine Gael Deputies to voluntarily give up their ministerial pensions. This was the most practical and effective remedy advocated by my party's leader, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. I welcome a similar decision that was taken by senior Labour Deputies last week.
The Green Party has always believed that pensions are earned during one's working life and are paid when one ceases to work. We have always objected to sitting Members of the Dáil and Seanad also being paid so-called "pensions". Such a scenario is a travesty at any time, even during years of economic boom. At a time when ordinary working people are suffering, it is reprehensible. We have never benefited from that system. However, senior politicians of many parties — including those from Fine Gael and Labour — did benefit from these dual payments.
We always supported ending the practice of sitting Deputies and Senators claiming pensions. However, the legal advice received by the Government last year — which was renewed in recent weeks — indicated that ending this practice by the legislative route would give rise to a legal minefield. We were obliged to accept that these pensions could be only reduced and not abolished. Our leader, Deputy Gormley, always said there was a simple remedy in this regard, namely, instead of talking about new laws, those receiving such pensions could simply give them up. Many politicians did that some time ago and last week, senior figures in this House, including those in the sponsor party of this motion, did so. Effectively, they took Deputy Gormley's advice of almost one year ago, which I welcome.
I am far less impressed by the belated and bogus attempts by Fine Gael and Labour to seize the moral high ground on an issue they neglected for decades in government and opposition. Fine Gael and Labour were in government for a large portion of the 1980s and 1990s. While they could have reformed the system then, they did not. For many years but in particular for the past year, they could have led by example on this vexed issue and voluntarily given up such pensions. However, many of their Members preferred to call for new laws that they knew to be problematic. What a cynical device that was and the motion under debate takes such cynicism to a new low. Deputy Kenny should have listened to my colleague, Deputy Gogarty, who called for pay cuts for Ministers and Deputies. However, the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, dismissed it as "populist nonsense". One week later, sensing public opinion, Deputy Kenny changed his mind. However it was too late as the Government already had decided to take the initiative. For weeks there was silence from Fine Gael on pensions. Now however, running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, this populist motion has crawled forth, ignoring all constitutional barriers.
One is not allowed hunt any more. Hunting has been banned.
If Deputy Kenny wants to show real leadership——
One is not allowed to hunt.
Allow the Minister of State to speak.
——he will stop his party from taking corporate donations——
Hear, hear.
——and will own up to Fine Gael's role in the property bubble and the speculator-driven economic crisis we face today.
Hear, hear.
I ask Fine Gael and Deputy Kenny to give up corporate donations now before the Green Party measures in the new revised programme for Government does it for them. They will come down the track very shortly. Real leadership is about taking hard decisions despite them causing difficulties. This is the reason the Green Party is leading in Government while Fine Gael sits in opposition.
I am glad to add my piece to what I call an intensely bogus debate.
Hear, hear.
I do not wish to be a member of the e-mail address of prurience.ie. I never did and I never will. Prurience is an ugly characteristic that will extend from financial matters to sexual matters or to whatever one wishes. However, it is not a characteristic towards which I aspire, nor ever I did. It is an ugly thing in which to be involved. Equally, I believe this debate to be so bogus that it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall and Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
Humpty Dumpty was not in Alice in Wonderland.
If Deputy Kenny and Deputy Gilmore have nothing better to do with their Dáil time than to orchestrate a debate for three hours or whatever——
It is Chicken Licken politics.
——in respect of two people, the whole thing is quite mad. I am surprised that some Members of the Labour Party, whom I regard with friendship, would go along with this bogus debate.
First, I refer to the element of the Opposition that is particularly noticeable at local level on local councils or county councils. They never see any good in anything. They are "appalled" — I use the word advisedly in inverted commas — by every decision taken by the Government. They are appalled and state this absolutely is the worst ever measure of which they ever have heard or will ever hear or see in their lifetimes. If only they could be in government right now as I would not be appalled but would understand quite well that this is the carry-on.
Is the Deputy looking in the mirror?
Do they ever approve of anything? I refer to the financial sphere, in which Ireland is holding its own at present. It is not as though one sets out to get bullet points, red marks, five stars or whatever one gets for being a good girl or a good boy. Do such individuals ever say they are glad that what the Government has tried to do in this regard has been recognised? No, they are appalled at some small financial misdemeanour to which they now must devote three hours of their own time. I acknowledge it is the Opposition's own time and they can do somersaults on the floor if they so decide for the three hours available. It is their own time to do with as they wish.
The Government had a chance to deal with this but did not.
Please allow the Deputy to speak.
I hope junior Members of this House will allow older Members to have their say.
Senior Members.
Particularly older Members who find it difficult to find their voices.
The Deputy enjoys a bit of fun.
I would expect that I would be allowed——
Allow Deputy O'Rourke to address the House.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy's day will come too and will it not be lovely to see him squirming?
I have the greatest respect for the Deputy and enjoy debating with her.
Please, Deputy English.
To return to the present matter, Deputy Conlon raised a true point that I wish to reiterate. Have Members any respect for one another? Have they any respect for the fact that they all tread on the same path of knocking on people's doors, asking for approval, seeking their vote and being duly elected as vox populi? Do Members have any regard for one another? Members are in grave danger of going down the path of prurience.ie until it extends to every aspect of their lives and that would not be a pretty sight.
While I acknowledge I am adding to it — at least I admit it — I reject the waste of time the Opposition has brought to this debate. Increasingly in public discourse, I note the waste of time on the part of the Opposition. When I entered this House, my party had been almost five years in opposition and I always thought it was my job to see the good in whatever measures were brought in, to ascertain what I did not regard as being good and to speak on both equally. However, that entire tenor of debate appears to have gone. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland Humpty Dumpty-land.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I do so in the interests of democracy and of the Constitution. I regard this situation and this debate as being highly hypocritical. The position pertaining to ministerial pensions is clear. Six decades ago, Members' predecessors in this House introduced a ministerial pension regime to ensure that of those who held ministerial office would be available to serve the people in subsequent elections. They could go before the people in subsequent elections following their transformation from being Ministers, with the consequential drop in salary, to being humble backbenchers. They would be available for re-election on that basis. This measure was introduced to ensure the expertise and experience garnered in this House would continue to be available to this House.
I first was elected to this House 28 years ago and have fought ten elections since then. On entering this House, I was proud to serve on a committee of public expenditure with some of the most outstanding former Ministers from all parties who had served this country over the years. The committee's members worked together and took some powerful decisions in the interests of the country and of public expenditure and made a huge politically consensual contribution towards ensuring value for money for this country.
I regret that Members have allowed a situation to evolve that I would describe as being the politics of envy and the politics of hypocrisy. It is ironic that Fine Gael would table this motion and I note it has been supported by the Labour Party in its efforts of late. Deputy Kenny spoke to me last Tuesday week in this House and said he felt this whole pensions situation was really draconian and that it would drive politicians out of this House because there would be no incentive to remain. Perhaps a covert effort is under way, through tabling this motion, wherein the Opposition believes that by forcing this issue and forcing the hands of people, it might drive them out of this House so that it would not face competition in the next election from experienced people, be they current or former Ministers.
It will not happen anyway.
That will not happen and Members will not succumb to such covert opportunism on the part of the Opposition. It is ironic also that in 1997 when we returned to Government and the outgoing rainbow coalition was leaving office following a mere two years in government, it recommended that pensions would be given to Ministers on a two-year basis, on they having served this State for two years.
Yes.
The members of that coalition knocked at the door of the subsequent Government, led by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, time out of number to ensure that situation prevailed. Deputy Kenny was a beneficiary of that decision. Our party's generosity consistently to this nation, its people and this Parliament was always honoured in the breach and never just for mere opportunity. It was honoured in the interests of a totality of consensus on what was best for the common good and to retain people in public office. Deputy Gilmore was also a beneficiary of that decision.
We had the hypocrisy of Members opposite coming in here and making a statement last year that they would give away 5% of their salaries, reduce their salaries by 5% and leave that money to the Exchequer, but as soon as the Government took a decision, it did not take too long for Deputy Kenny and his colleagues to withdraw the request they had made to have 5% of their salaries donated.
The Government did that only when we forced its hand.
The Government took an official legal position. We have responded to the serious problems facing this country at this time. We have responded consistently and pragmatically in the interests of the common good. We have taken strong decisions in the interests of not just the current generation but future generations and we expect the Opposition will support those decisions. We have been consistently derided and decried about this situation. It is outrageous that we have this hypocritical situation today where we have to discuss this matter when this Government, led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, and an outstanding Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, took a decision that for all future elections, subsequent to the next election, people standing for office will know the rules of engagement going into that election and that from there on in no pensions will be paid to outgoing Ministers. Those decisions have been taken in the interests of ensuring there is transparency, fairness and equity across the country.
I came into politics in 1982. I did not ask to come into this business, rather I was asked on eight occasions to enter politics. I refused to do so on those eight occasions but I gave in on the ninth occasion. I served on a local authority for six years. I never claimed as much as 1 cent while I was a member of that authority representing my county as mayor and as chairman of the county council at the time.
I regard this as outrageously hypocritical. I get a mere net pension of €167 per week and I cannot afford to give it up. However, in the interests of there being equity in this House, and standing in solidarity with my colleagues and with the people of Ireland and having regard to the great generosity of members of the Opposition, who have decided to donate their pensions to various bodies and organisations, I, too, am prepared to allocate my pension to various voluntary bodies and charitable organisations.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Naughten and English.
I take it it is with Deputies English and Naughten in that order.
That is agreed.
The previous speaker spoke about hypocrisy, the common good and other matters. I have been in this House for only 17.5 years but I have heard a great deal of hypocrisy in that time, of that there is no doubt. I heard people when they were on this side of the House for the short time that we were in government tell us what they would and would not do. We know the state the country is in and that is why we are in this situation. We must recognise that. Those on low salaries who have had them cut have seen that the Government was able to find €22.5 million for a bank that has no future and for which there is no hope. Issues such as this one arise to be dealt with because of the current crisis in the country.
I welcome an opportunity to speak on this motion regarding ministerial expenses. My party colleagues such as Deputies Bruton, O'Donnell and others have dealt ably with the motion and I will deal with the Government's amendment to it. Having been a Member of the Dáil for 17.5 years, I was unfortunate not to have had an opportunity to earn a ministerial pension. Therefore, this issue is not relevant to me personally nor is it relevant to many others on the Fine Gael side. However, with all the cuts that have been imposed on people by this Government, even on those on very low incomes, it is not difficult to understand the anger on the ground regarding this issue, having regard to the massive amounts of money that have been given to bankers and to fund various other situations that have been allowed by the Government.
The words in the Government amendment to the motion that Dáil Éireann "takes note of the Government's actions to deal with the economic crisis" raises more questions than it answers. In my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, there is no sign of even one job the Government has created by any action it has taken. Many jobs have been lost in small industries and in the retail sector because of Government inaction. The Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, admitted that the Government had made a major blunder regarding the increase in VAT introduced in the 2009 budget at a time when the UK Government decreased its VAT rate, and this led to a €700 million loss to the economy in a few months and caused major damage to the retail sector and the loss of jobs.
The single biggest topic in the Border region currently is the crisis in the Quinn industry, it being a group that created 5,500 jobs on this island and that supports many thousands more. A member of the legislative Assembly in Stormont who attended a meeting in Cavan recently said that the Quinn issue had brought politicians from all parties, north and south of the Border, together for the first time working for the one purpose and singing from the same hymn sheet; and that was to save jobs.
I take exception to what a previous speaker who was a former Minister, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, said, namely, that we in the Opposition never do anything positive, that we always criticise and we never try to work with the Government. Those in government nearly blame the Opposition for that fact that Ireland is in the state it is in today.
I want to point out one issue to the Minister of State. We first met the Quinn employees in Ballyconnell on Easter Saturday. Every politician present from every party, north and south of the Border, agreed to work together to try to save as many of those jobs as possible. Deputy O'Hanlon said that in his 32 years in this House he never saw a group work so closely and that no effort was made by those people to get media coverage to make points against each other. We attended every meeting with the regulator, the administrators, the Ministers and everybody else involved. We advised the representatives of the workers what we were doing. It was all done in harmony. Yet, the Minister and his colleagues went to Cavan this week and not one member of the Opposition was informed about this, good bad or indifferent. It is all right for the former Minister, Deputy O'Rourke to tell us what we should do, but when we try to do it, we get a kick in the teeth or perhaps even worse.
As I said, one of the longest serving Members of the Dáil made a statement in public that he never saw people working so closely as the Quinn Group of workers. However, it has emerged that as of now there is no resolution to the Quinn issue. The administrator has already announced that he is seeking more than 900 redundancies from the insurance business solely as a result of the withdrawal of Quinn Insurance from Northern Ireland and the UK market. One had to accept the regulator's word at the time he closed that market but major questionmarks now arise as to why he had to do so only hours before he appointed acting administrators rather than allowing the administrators to withdraw the major loss measures from the various sectors of the market and keep the rest open. As a group of parliamentarians working together, we believed for a long time that actions were taking place behind the scenes within Government which would save the company and would clearly lead to a change of personnel at the helm, but it came as a major shock to all of us that this promise of Government action did not lead to any resolution and that Quinn Insurance is now up for sale. I again call on the Government, particularly the Taoiseach, to urgently re-examine this whole situation to see if there is any way this company can be saved as a major insurance entity.
I remind the House that when Quinn Insurance was established, it was impossible for young drivers——
I have allowed the Deputy some latitude. The issue is ministerial pensions.
We are talking about the amendment, which states that the Dáil "takes note of the Government's actions to deal with the economic crisis".
That is why I provided some latitude but it is not an economic debate.
Yes. We met the chamber of commerce in Cavan and representatives of the workforce from Quinn Insurance. They find it extremely difficult to understand how the Government can find €22.5 billion of Irish taxpayers' money to prop up Anglo Irish Bank, which the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, now admits has a very questionable future. There is no need to remind the House how many times my party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, questioned the need or justification for propping up this bank, and our party spokesman on finance, Deputy Richard Bruton, ably pointed out the alternatives. It must be remembered that in the Quinn case some 5,500 jobs are at stake whereas, on the other hand, how many Irish jobs has Anglo Irish Bank provided or will it ever provide? The other issue which neither the chamber of commerce nor the Quinn Group staff could understand was how the Minister for Finance could raise the guarantees for the Greek Government from €500 million to €1.3 billion without even requiring a Cabinet meeting.
While the Quinn company admits freely that the insurance business lost money in the UK market during 2009, independent figures published in the UK will show that its loss was accordingly much less than those incurred by its opposition in the market. The unique loss in this market in 2009 was as a result of storm damage, which all companies experienced.
The attempts by Government this week to appease the workers by promising support structures and advanced training for other employment is of little comfort. The record of the Government in providing alternative employment in the Border region is nil, so it is difficult for the workers to understand how there is a need to up-skill an extremely well skilled workforce for jobs that do not exist. On behalf of the workers and the general Border community, I again beg the Government, particularly the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, to bring about a rescue package.
The Government amendment to the Fine Gael motion asks that the Dáil "recognises the budgetary measures taken by the Government to stabilise the public finances". Again, one must question what this statement means. We were assured in the Budget Statement that the €4 billion paid to Anglo Irish Bank would not be included in the budgetary structures and, therefore, would not affect our standing within the EU. It is now clear this statement was not justified and that we have to deal with this charge as part of our ongoing budgetary situation.
While I welcome the change in VAT, although nominal, and the change in excise duty on alcohol, the fact the carbon tax has been put in place creates loss of revenue across the Border region, creating a fall-off in the cross-Border purchase of petrol and diesel. The carbon tax will have serious implications for the farming community and particularly for agricultural contractors, who will not be able to cover the extra charges from a farming structure which is already seriously in debt.
The fact the Government insisted on taking further levies and taxes from even the lowest paid is causing serious problems for low income families. Fine Gael's alternative budget showed clearly why there should be no cuts to income under €30,000. We certainly did not agree that the highest paid civil servants should literally be let off scot free. Farming income, particularly in the Border region, which suffered from severe weather conditions as well as falling prices, fell by anything up to 50% and farmers cannot get working capital from the banks. Many of the companies which supplied farmers with necessary feedstuffs for their animals over the winter period have no idea when they will get paid and, unfortunately, many of the farmers in most difficulty financially cannot get their REPS payments and have to wait on their farm building grants.
On the other hand, Fine Gael has set out, through a Border forum under the chairmanship of Deputy Joe McHugh, ways forward towards work in the Border region. We met a number of months ago and again last Tuesday in Cavan with our party leader to consider how matters could be improved in light of what the Government has done in the budget and how we can help that situation.
The Government amendment "notes the reduction in the number of Ministers of State and the reduction in staffing of Ministers' offices". I have heard much hypocrisy about what the Government did and why it did it. It was this side of the House that forced the Government to make that decision. The Greens claimed it was they who used their influence within the Government to insist that this reduction be made. What actually happened? We learned afterwards that, as part of the agreement for Government, the Greens got an extra Ministry half way through the term of the Government. They now have not just two senior Ministers but also two Ministers of State — such hypocrisy from the party that claimed they were the saints. This did not happen because the Government wanted it; the Government was forced to show leadership in the greatest economic crisis this country has ever seen. The reduction in the number of Ministers and the reduction in their staff is certainly welcome and shows some leadership. However, that leadership came from the Fine Gael side of the House.
The Government amendment "acknowledges the extensive efforts of the Government to secure solidarity among the social partners". I hope the agreement made at Croke Park is accepted. The one area I cannot understand, coming from a farming background, is that social solidarity kept farmers so quiet at leadership level that they allowed farm incomes to drop by 50%. I have never seen such desperation at farm level. While it is said the Government has made major improvements as a result of that solidarity, over the next year or so it will see the results of its failures at both European level and every other level to support those who are the backbone of this country. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, to recognise the serious situation in farming and ensure that the negotiations at European level for changes in CAP are at the top of the Government agenda and are delivered in a positive way.
I get worried for this country when I listen to what some of the Members on the other side of the House have to say in these debates. I do not know what planet they are on. To come in here like some of our colleagues and make big speeches stating that this debate is unnecessary and that there is nothing wrong with having these pensions shows they are completely off the wall and are not in touch with what is going on. We are living in a different Ireland to the one we lived in five or six years ago. Apart from that, it was never right that a sitting Deputy would also draw a ministerial pension — it should never have been introduced. It is not just because Ireland has changed or that we are in tough times that we are doing this. It was wrong in itself, even whiile I accept that Deputies of all parties went along with it.
We now have a chance to fix it. I raised this issue a couple of years ago but no one wanted to hear anything about it, not even the media. This also applied to many other areas where money was being wasted — nobody wanted to talk about them three or four years ago. Thankfully, while there are mostly bad points about these recessionary times, one good point is that there is a chance to correct how we spend money, where we spent it wrongly, and to put it right once and for all. For years, my backbench colleagues and I highlighted many of these areas where money was being spent wrongly. Taxpayers' money was being wasted and not spent in the proper spirit of law or government.
Deputy Seán Power stated that Deputy Kenny does not know what the country needs or wants. I put it to him — I note he has left the Chamber — that what the country does not need or want is Members of this House receiving a second wage in the form of a pension. This is wrong on either front. I say to those who have taken pot-shots at Deputy Kenny in regard to the tabling of this motion that Deputy Kenny did not have to introduce legislation to ensure members of the Fine Gael Party gave back their pensions. He did not have to do so because he is a leader and members of the Fine Gael Party listened to him, took his advice and took action, which is what should happen in other parties. There is something wrong when the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, did not have the power to convince his own colleagues to give up their unnecessary pensions, which are a second wage. I believe the Taoiseach knows his days are numbered given he could not even deal with that simple issue.
Fine Gael did not wish to waste three hours discussing this issue. There are plenty of other issues we want to discuss, including the situation in Greece, Europe and in Ireland in terms of our finances, the Quinn Group jobs and many other issues such as the number of people in all of our constituencies who are losing their jobs. There are many other issues than this with which we want to deal.
We do not like having to deal with this issue in this way. Deputy Kenny raised it last year and asked the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance to deal with it. He told them if they did not we would find a way to do so. Deputy Kenny again raised the issue a few weeks ago but the Government continued to refuse to act. He again asked last week that the Government do something about it but no action whatever has been taken. Deputy Kenny then, thankfully, found a way, which we believe is legally correct, to do this. That is the reason we are having this debate.
This debate is necessary because the people need to know this House is willing to take action to correct what it has done wrong in the past. The people need leadership. Members and Ministers who cannot get their affairs in order cannot expect anybody else to accept cuts in wages or to deal with hardship. One needs to lead from the front and this should start in this House. This is the reason we are having this debate. It is a matter of principle. I heard on local radio yesterday it being stated that there were only three Members remaining who did not give up their pensions and that only €20,000 or €30,000 each was involved, which is not a big deal. It is a big deal. The principle is what is important. The message must go out that this House knows it must change the way in which it does its business. This debate is one small step towards correcting what is and has always been wrong.
There are many other issues which the House needs to address. I have been a Member for almost eight years. I am fed up being told every morning that if I am not happy with the rules I should seek to have them changed. We, on this side of the House, cannot change them. We do not have enough Members to win a vote and the Ceann Comhairle knows this. The previous and current Ceann Comhairle continue to say this. This must stop. It is only the Government side of the House that can bring about Dáil reform. The Government does not even need our support to introduce change in this regard. We need proper reform.
Deputy Conlon asked what we, as Members of this House, are doing to its reputation. What did Deputy Bertie Ahern and Fianna Fáil in Government do for this House? They ruined the reputation of this Parliament. They made a joke of it. One cannot get answers to parliamentary questions and line Ministers rarely turn up for Adjournment debates. One cannot raise issues of the day in the House. Approximately one and a half hours every day is wasted on the Order of Business, with Members on all sides raising in a silly manner issues that should be discussed properly. They have no other way of raising these issues, which is a joke. Anybody following the proceedings of this House must see it is a farce, which is what it has become in the past ten or 15 years. There is one party responsible for this.
I long for the day when Parliament will not be run by Government but will be separate. That is how it must be if we are to have a properly functioning democracy with proper oversight, which is what we do not have now. This is the reason the reputations of politicians have become a joke. We are at the bottom of the rung but will move on. This is only part of what is wrong in this House.
The motion before us relates to the claw back of pensions from Ministers and Members of this House. It is easy to start with this. However, it is fundamentally wrong for anybody working in the public sector to also draw a public sector pension. I accept this affects many more people other than politicians. A person who continues in public service employment should not be permitted to also draw a public service pension.
Deputy English has one minute remaining.
This issue, although difficult to deal with, must be addressed. It is wrong in particular when the person holding the second job is keeping another person out of a job. I understand that in some cases re-engagement of particular people with expertise is necessary. We can find ways around this. It is wrong that a person should be permitted to draw at the same time a pension and public sector wage.
It was stated earlier that this issue is being driven by the media. I accept it has been covered by the media who have a responsibility to report on such issues. The media has a duty to democracy to point out that not all Deputies are the same. There are good Deputies in all parties. The majority of Deputies are good and they work hard. Being a Deputy incurs business costs. Expenses are not profit but recuperation of costs. While I wish the system was clearer, it is at least better than it was. The media has a responsibility to ensure it does not erode everybody's confidence in politics and democracy. Politicians also have a responsibility to ensure the media is in a position to report positively about them, which is what today is about. There is a responsibility on the media, Government, politicians and so on to fix the reputation of politics in general. The people need hope and to be able to believe in the system. This must start with reform of this House.
I call Deputy Naughten who has seven minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I refer Members to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, the pension levy Act, as passed by this House, despite our arguments in regard to some of its content. The preamble to that Act states that it is necessary to cut current Exchequer spending substantially to demonstrate to the international financial markets that public expenditure is being significantly controlled to ensure continued access to international funding and to protect the State's credit rating and reverse the erosion of the State's international competitiveness. This objective remains in terms of the actions we, this Parliament, and the Government take. While the Revenue figures are positive and it now appears we are hitting a floor in terms of Revenue returns, our economy is a long way from recovery. The cost to the Irish Government in terms of obtaining funds and lending is increasing dramatically. Where this will finish, we do not know. There is no doubt but that the Croke Park deal, if it does not go as the Government wishes it to go, will have a significant impact on our lending rates and international perception. Having this debate at a time when public servants are voting on that deal is irresponsible. The Government should have provided leadership on this issue.
The comments of some people, in regard to a failure on the part of Members of this side of the House to be constructive, stick in my craw. Deputy Crawford articulated well this point in terms of the debacle of the Quinn Group. Another relevant point in this regard, one with which every Member of the House will agree, is that of the good Samaritan Bill which was voted down by Government on two separate occasions purely because it was proposed by the Opposition. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Ahern, then appeared in the House a couple of weeks later with his own legislation, for which we were expected to clap him on the back. They were purely partisan decisions in relation to legislation that not one dissenter could argue against.
We have all been embarrassed by the regime in this House which has not been overhauled. All of us, including Minister of State, Deputy Calleary and some of my colleagues, were surprised when we came into this House by some of the structures in place. I welcome the reform introduced during the past number of months in regard to remuneration and expenses. Perhaps the financial situation we are in has allowed some of the structures to be built. I welcome the introduction of vouched expenses and it is something for which I have argued for a long time. It makes perfect sense to have them. However, the media do not report that many of the vouched expenses we have will not be covered under the proposed new regime. Many of us would like to see all expenses fully vouched.
I agree with the argument made by Deputy Treacy that there should be a long service increment. It was introduced several years ago to make the acknowledgement about which Deputy Treacy spoke earlier. It was not right that when I entered the House at the age of 23, very wet behind the ears, I received the exact same salary as Members with 20 or 30 years experience in the House. That was changed, but has now been reversed.
The pension debacle has brought to the fore in the public mind the lack of capacity in Government to provide any semblance of leadership or direction for the country. It is a watershed for the Government and from here on the public will dismiss any call for solidarity in the interest of getting our country and economy out of the septic quagmire that has been created by successive Fianna Fáil governments.
The Government has made a series of flawed decisions. The pay cuts introduced in the budget last December mean that a cleaner pays as a percentage of salary more of a contribution to get us out of this mess than a Minister or a senior civil servant. The pay cuts introduced by the Minister for Finance were significantly flawed, especially when he decided to include a bonus scheme that had already been shelved, in the calculations to determine the pay cuts of public servants. Someone earning less than €30,000, including those on the minimum wage, saw their pay cut by 5% while Ministers and senior civil servants on salaries of €150,000 and more had their pay cut by approximately 3%. That is hard to justify. It is immoral.
I proposed a constructive suggestion to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to deal with the issue of judges' pay and the huge costs to the taxpayer of our asylum system of €80,000 a day. I asked the Minister to contact the President of the High Court and ask judges to sit longer during September to deal with the backlog in judicial review cases. The Minister refused point blank to take that suggestion on board. However, on 12 April the President of the High Court took on that very initiative and has decided that judges will sit during September to deal with the backlog. Constructive suggestions put forward by the Opposition in this Chamber are dismissed out of hand by the Government because they come from the Opposition. Other public servants are to be commended for taking on those initiatives and implementing them.
We have a rudderless Government; its Members will not speak to their colleagues and implement a simple proposal that would first and foremost provide the type of leadership for which the country is crying out and provide the direction that is urgently needed.
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate over the course of the past day. I will bring them back to the contribution of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in which he put the context of the unprecedented budgetary and economic difficulties we are facing. We are giving leadership in facing these difficulties and this leadership is beginning to bring stability to our public finances.
The clear signs of success are beginning to show. Clear indications, independently verified, show that the economy will return to growth in the second half of this year, providing for a very sound platform for growth in 2011, forecast by the EU Commission to be in the region of 3%. This highlights that fact that we have one of the highest levels of growth forecast in the EU. Exchequer returns for the first four months of the year show stabilisation. In short, our economic and budgetary policies are beginning to bear fruit. It has been a very difficult process and it will be a long time before we can point to clear signs of success, particularly in the field of employment. However, the early signs are good.
The word "fairness" has been thrown around during the debate and everybody in the House of all ages would agree that in the current climate, politics must be fair and must be seen to be fair. We cannot provide the leadership required at present unless this is obvious. Members of the Oireachtas and Ministers cannot ask of others what they are unwilling to impose on themselves. In this context, as the Minister for Finance made clear last night, Members of the Government and of the Oireachtas have already taken very significant reductions in their pay and conditions as part of measures to reduce the cost of running government. These measures were in addition to other reductions through pension levies and tax increases. The number of Ministers of State was reduced, bringing further reductions in the administrative costs of government. The Government has shown leadership, as Deputy Naughten stated, and the reductions imposed in government pay and administration are without precedent among our European partners.
The House will accept that as part of a wide range of measures introduced by the Government to tackle the crisis, the pensions of former Ministers sitting in the Houses of the Oireachtas have been significantly reduced since the middle of last year and will cease to be paid to sitting Members after the next general election. Acting on the advice of the Attorney General, the Government took all the steps it could within the law to reduce the cost of ministerial pensions in the 2009 legislation. The advice of the Attorney General was that pensions could not be stopped completely but they could be reduced in a proportionate way after consultation. After the Minister for Finance carried out that consultation, a reduction of 25% was considered to be proportionate; this was done in the 2009 Act. The Attorney General indicated that it could be stopped in the next Dáil and this was also provided for in the 2009 Act.
It would be beneficial to expound a little on the advice of the Attorney General. In 2009, the Attorney General advised that pensions were earned but deferred income to which the person concerned has a property right. These pensions could not be removed entirely but they could be reduced in a proportionate way after consultation. More recently, the Attorney General advised that legislation to end pension payments completely for a particular group of people who have clear rights to that pension would be disproportionate and discriminatory and would therefore be unconstitutional, as is stated in our counter motion. At a time when there are no reductions in the State pension or in the pensions of public servants generally it would be constitutionally dubious to target a particular pension and abolish it completely.
In the circumstances, the Government went as far as any responsible administration could go within the law. There may be other views about what is legally possible but the Government must take account of the views of the Attorney General. A democratic government, operating within the law, faces a challenging task of ensuring that legislation complies with the requirements of Bunreacht na hÉireann. We do not have the luxury of ignoring the Bunreacht even if it were popular to do so.
As was pointed out, this will not be an issue in the next Dáil; the pension will simply not be paid. For the information of the House, there has also been significant reform of public service pensions; it will not affect Deputies Naughten or English but it will affect Deputy D'Arcy and me when we will be paid our pensions at the age of 68.
The Minister of State will be here for a long time so he will be alright.
I hope so.
Let us reflect on the real context of the debate. There has been much talk by the Opposition about the 2009 debate. If the motion is right today then it was right in 2009 when many Opposition Members contributed to and voted on the debate but continued to accept their pensions until last week. Let us be very clear about the real motivation behind this debate; it is more to do with chasing popularity and opinion polls, and if that is to be the guiding principle of Fine Gael, or the Opposition, then how can it be trusted to take the very difficult decisions that must be taken to return stability to the economy and to give hope to the people, as many Fine Gael Deputies stated? If this motion is right today and Fine Gael Deputies support it then they must ask themselves why they did not support and endorse fully the concept in 2009.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, but his position rings extremely hollow coming from a Fianna Fáil person, knowing the way Fianna Fáil has always operated in opposition. Somebody once observed that when people say, "It is not about the money", the one thing one can be sure of is that it is about the money. Similarly, when someone in Fianna Fáil says, "It is a matter of principle", the one thing one can be sure of is that it is not a matter of principle. This has to do with greed and self-preservation, and, in this instance, a lethal disconnection between a government and the people it is supposed to serve. With the Government it is all about "us" and "them", with the "them" category occupied by the citizens of the State. The citizen can be punished for crimes for which he or she was not responsible, impoverished using one levy after another and frightened, humiliated or left uninformed. Citizens and public sector employees have had their salaries reduced for the first time in the history of the State. That is the "them" side of the equation. The "us" side of the equation is very different. The Fianna Fáil Party and its meek partners in government do not understand that the essence of good leadership is to take the same pain everybody else is taking.
The current sad episode in Irish politics has been characterised by an unprecedented level of uncaring arrogance on the part of some former Ministers. While Deputy Jim McDaid is the most vocal of them, he also speaks for others who have not surrendered their pensions. I am informed the Deputy is an excellent and professional general practitioner. I do not have any confidence in his professionalism as a Deputy.
That is a matter for people in Donegal to decide.
Yes, it is a matter for people in the Donegal North-East constituency. Deputy McDaid has decided that 80% of the divisions called in the House do not warrant his attention. While he is paid as a Deputy, he does not perform the most basic of parliamentary functions. He is somehow more important than the rest of us and continues to be paid for failing to vote. As the Minister of State pointed out, that is a matter for Deputy McDaid's constituents in Donegal North-East. Notwithstanding that, his party should be ashamed of him and his party leader should have something to say on the disrespect he has shown for the democratic process to which he signed up. Will the Taoiseach pull up Deputy McDaid on his impertinence in taking the money to do with it as he chooses?
Deputy McDaid has adopted a bizarre position on the issue of his pension, claiming he took a decision not to forego to prove a point about preserving the Dáil from the threat of rich people. In the name of God, we are not stupid. The Deputy is taking a position which is impossible to stand up and the Government's moral guardians in the Green Party should force the Taoiseach to pull him up. They did so in the case of the former Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, albeit only when it finally dawned on them that it was necessary. It is doubtful this will be repeated because we have a Taoiseach who buys into the "us and them" approach and misses the tragic point of the idiotic pleas of the former Minister, Deputy McDaid, that he will, on a point of principle, keep the rich from becoming too powerful in Leinster House.
For the past ten years, on the Taoiseach's watch as Minister for Finance and as Taoiseach, the rich have become overwhelmingly powerful inside and outside Leinster House. The former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, created the tax breaks that bent the economy out of shape and his successor, the current Taoiseach, preserved every last one of them. He pulled the tent pegs out of the Galway tent — big deal. The thinking in government is that we should ignore the reality and look at the symbol. We should ignore the estates desecrating the face of rural Ireland, the hotels built in every corner of the country as a result of tax breaks, most of which were never needed, and the collusion in the cloud cuckoo land inhabited by developers, bankers and Fianna Fáil Party politicians. As long as the Galway tent is pulled down, so the thinking goes, most of the people can be fooled most of the time.
The tradition in this country is that when one does something wrong, one confesses, takes responsibility and indicates one will do something about it. In the rainbow coalition, of which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was a member, two Ministers resigned not because of major controversies but because the threshold of culpability for wrongdoing was higher than it is now.
The rainbow Government lowered the threshold for qualifying for pensions.
We should remember that the former Minister, Deputy O'Dea, slandered another public representative before denying in a sworn affidavit that he had done so. He was found out because he was caught on tape engaging in the slander he had denied. We should also remember the pathetic response of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, when he pretended he believed the Minister for Defence. Only one and a half days after the former made his speech, the latter had left office.
The Fianna Fáil Party has not made a single confession about what has taken place over the past 15 years. The Taoiseach has expressed regret in the same way I might express regret that the cloud of lava ash is continuing to play havoc with the lives of air travellers. As I am not responsible for the lava ash, my expression of regret would come under the heading "general sympathy." The plain people of Ireland need much more than general sympathy from the Taoiseach. When good people are put to the pin of their collar to meet mortgage payments on a house worth two thirds of what it costs them, a confession and an apology from the Government would be a start but a firm purpose of amendment is what is really needed.
The Taoiseach should long ago have hauled together all former Ministers and told them that their moral responsibility, having impoverished the diligent citizens of this nation, is not to grind the faces of citizens in the excessive wealth arising from their position. There was not a chance that this would be done as to do so would require leadership, a quality the Taoiseach has never displayed.
We should also remember the Boston versus Berlin argument of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, who chose to develop a two tier health system. The Taoiseach now stands idly by while a two tier society develops, an "us and them" economy in which the "them", the new poor, have an opportunity to bail out the banks. Are they not lucky? The people in question are the hard working middle classes who did things right. The vast majority of them did not borrow excessively to have a four-wheel drive sports utility vehicle outside the door, nor did they spend €10,000 or €15,000 on trips around the world before adding the cost to a 30 year mortgage. They did not take mortgages of many multiples of their salary but did things properly.
The "us", on the other hand, are the former Ministers who pocket their pensions and go home with smiles on their faces. In refusing to surrender their pensions they are engaging in an exercise in irresponsibility and contempt. Not only are their actions immoral but they are amoral. They just do not get it; they fail to understand the outrage and annoyance of members of the public because they are entirely disconnected.
What happened in Athens yesterday, when three people, including a pregnant woman died in riots, was a horror which must be condemned by every European. However, yesterday's events reflect the desperation of the new poor. Ireland, too, has a new poor. The difficulty they face is not the amount they earn but the financial commitments they have entered into. According to a paper produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, personal debt here has reached €147 billion. Between 1995 and 2008 — effectively the Bertie Ahern era — household debt increased by 267%. For those who argue this is not excessive given the 13 year period involved, household debt in France and Britain increased by 9% and 63%, respectively, in the same period.
When I spoke to the Minister for Finance last week on the indebtedness of Ireland and its citizens, he told me about a code of conduct and an oversight committee consisting of representatives of the Irish Banking Federation. I told him he was out of touch because the membership of the committee was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Meanwhile, we have the new poor, the "us and them" society and a Taoiseach who would prefer not to force his pals to do what is right. This type of apathy is unacceptable, inappropriate and disgraceful.
I propose to discuss the Pensions (Abatement) Act 1965. I want to quote from the Citizens Information Board:
Most public sector pension schemes are subject to what is called abatement if you return to work in the public sector. The precise conditions may vary from one scheme to another but, in general, abatement means that the pension is reduced in order to ensure that you do not earn more between the pension and the income from employment than you would if you had remained in employment.
There is legislation for us and them, "us" being the politicians here in this House and "them" public sector employees. There are no circumstances in which this should be allowed happen. Many retired teachers have claimed their gratuity to which they are entitled and which I support, but if a retired teacher claims a gratuity and then goes back into work, then that is all right if nobody is available to take that place. However, as we know, there are now thousands of unemployed young teachers coming out of college who are claiming social welfare payments from the State.
Our former colleague Ivan Yates is claiming his pension, which he is fully entitled to do. He is also claiming funds from his work in the private sector, which he is entitled to do. However, our former colleague Alan Dukes is now working for Anglo Irish Bank, which is wholly owned by the State. He is not really a public sector employee, even though all the funds are coming from the State. I believe the Pensions (Abatement) Act should apply completely to everybody. It should not apply to just some of the people, but all of the people.
Maybe the Taoiseach could get some advice from road safety experts. They would tell him that he can encourage, inform and advertise until he is blue in the face, but what actually saves lives is enforcement, such as doing random breath-testing by the Garda. It is the same with Fianna Fáil. When the proper action to take is obvious, they do not take it. They reflect on taking it or, in Deputy McDaid's case, they develop bizarre rationales for not taking it.
Enforcement is the way to go. Enforcement will ensure an end to this two-tier society where any punishment can be dealt out to the citizen, but the same punishment is not dealt to politicians.
I have used the word "bizarre" quite deliberately. It belongs with other words like grotesque, unprecedented and unbelievable; words that came from another era. That is where the current Taoiseach has brought this nation. He has brought us in a circle right back to the GUBU years of Fianna Fáil.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Behan, Joe.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Curran and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Mansergh, Martin.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Behan, Joe.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Curran and John Cregan; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.