The late James Dillon, who led my party in a distinguished fashion for a number of years, used to say that politics is a vocation that draws people into stormy waters as well as calm. This is true. Everybody who serves in this House, for any party or none, understands that. This profession has taken a beating on many fronts — some justified and some not. I have never accepted that it is unconstitutional for the Government to legislate to put an end to the payment of ministerial pensions to people who continue to serve in the Oireachtas. Prior to last year's budget, Fine Gael proposed as part of its pre-budget submission that legislation should be introduced to end the receipt of legitimate ministerial pensions by all serving Members of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Finance refused to divulge to me the legal advice that was given by the Attorney General in this regard. I understand it relates to the principle of legitimate expectation. In July of last year, the Government brought a Bill through the Oireachtas giving effect to a new law whereby from the first day of the next Dáil, no Member with ministerial experience who is entitled to a ministerial pension shall receive such a pension. The Government followed that by reducing the scale of the pensions paid to people who formerly served as Ministers.

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 so that it can be voted on by Fianna Fáil and Green Party Deputies on the Government side. I ask the Taoiseach to accept this Bill as a means of bringing an end to this practice. I want him to understand that if the Government votes it down, all of those Fine Gael Members who are legally entitled to draw ministerial pensions will voluntarily give up such pensions, or give them to charity.

As Deputy Kenny said, we legislated on this matter when it arose last year. The issues that arose on that occasion related to an entitlement under existing law, regarding a pension being seen a property right. We are advised that as property rights are protected under the Constitution, any reduction or removal of pensions by legislation has to be proportionate. The reductions which have been imposed on other groups are of relevance in determining what is proportionate. That is the advice we received from the Attorney General. As the Deputy knows, it is the convention not to publish advice but that is the essence of it. The pension entitlement for former Ministers who are serving Members of the Oireachtas will be abolished from the date of the next election. That is the existing position. We were advised that this position is consistent with the law and is what was possible. Therefore, unlike the last election, persons who are deciding whether to contest the next election will not have a legitimate expectation that they will continue to receive a ministerial pension while in receipt of an Oireachtas salary. A similar approach was taken in 1992 when changes to the receipt of ministerial pensions for Oireachtas Members did not take effect until after a general election had intervened. One can presume the same legal issue arose then. I have not seen or studied any proposal from Fine Gael on this matter. I can have it examined but the position we have outlined is based on the advice of the Attorney General and, as the Deputy knows, the Government has to abide by that advice.

Deputy Kenny can ask a brief supplementary question.

This is not 1992; it cannot be and it is not business as usual. I have received legal advice on the Bill published by Fine Gael today which states that it is constitutional to pass the Bill now and end this practice for everybody who is currently so entitled. It can be done immediately. The members of Fine Gael are willing to give up voluntarily those pensions if Fianna Fáil does not accept the Bill which I have put forward, which will also deal with members of Fianna Fáil. There are some strong reports that the reason there is reluctance about this issue is that some members of Fianna Fáil who have considerable ministerial experience are in receipt of significant pensions. In any event, this is a matter which is not of 1992. This is 2010.

Could we have a question?

Yes. The public at large is very angry about the mismanagement of the public finances. This is an issue which has been around for some time. It is unfair to have a situation where some do and some do not surrender their pensions. My view and that of my party is that the Government can legislate for this in the same way as the Taoiseach said property rights were affected in 1992. They will also be affected after the next election. All the members of my party who are so affected are prepared to give up voluntarily ministerial pensions. I understand the members of the Labour Party who are entitled to these legitimate pensions are voluntarily prepared to give them up. Is the Taoiseach prepared to speak in the House, call in the members of his party and arrive at a similar position if he is still reluctant to introduce the legislation or prepared to vote it down next week?

I have made it clear to the Deputy that it is not a question of reluctance on the part of the Government, rather it is a question of the Government having to propose legislation that is lawful.

Let them challenge it then.

It is not a question of challenging it, but a question of having lawful legislation. I am not saying the situation is the same as pertained in 1992 or any other time. The same legal principles apply because a similar approach was taken then on the question of the abolition of pensions in respect of the legislation passed last year. The Minister for Finance outlined that position in detail. It is not a question of any party being reluctant to introduce legislation, but about having to address this matter in a legal and lawful way.

I have made, and continue to make, the point that one cannot abolish property rights. One then has to have a proportionate reduction in payments, which we have done. There has been a reduction of 25%, as people will know. If people wish to gift or make a further contribution based on the current situation, that is a matter for each individual to consider and reflect upon, and they should be given that opportunity. We have been very anxious to ensure that discretion is applied to every individual.

Beating around the bush.