I agree with the Taoiseach that these are utterly exorbitant pensions. However, he has not told us what the Government will do about it. When Fianna Fáil was in power, it took a huge public outcry and much political pressure for it to introduce an 80% levy on bankers' bonuses in 2010. At that time, the Opposition of the day was outraged by the failure of the Government to act. In fact, the current Minister for Health called at that time for a 99% levy. We were sent to this House to legislate; that is our job. It is not enough for the Taoiseach to say that we can do nothing about this and that the Minister for Finance is constrained. Legislation can be introduced, and it is up to the Taoiseach and his Government to do that.

Second, the other issue with these huge payments is the fact that these banks are being funded by the taxpayers. That is deeply offensive. These are banks that will not give medium and small businesses credit or mortgage relief to citizens who are in mortgage distress. Food kitchens are opening in small towns and cities throughout the State, yet some of our Ministers earn more than their counterparts in Europe. The Taoiseach earns more than whoever will be elected the new US President today. This has nothing to do with the budget, but with an emergency that has arisen. Will the Taoiseach commit to introducing a levy to deal with these utterly exorbitant payments, as he described them?

The Deputy is talking about two different things. A pension is a pension but a bonus is a bonus. What was raised in the House on many occasions was dealing with very high bonus payments. Pensions are treated differently and are in a different position legally. I have heard comments about the power of shareholders, under section 50 of the Pensions Act, to impose reductions on pensions. Individual shareholders do not have the power under the Pensions Act to impose reductions on existing pensioners.

The Government is the biggest shareholder.

The individual shareholder cannot apply for a section 50 reduction. The section permits a pension board, following an application by trustees, to direct those trustees to reduce benefits, if they are subject to active and deferred scheme members or pensioners currently in receipt of a pension.

Fairness is clearly an issue and it must be reflected in the budget, in so far as the Government can do that. The review of all levels of pay in the pillar banks is being carried out by the Minister and the Department of Finance. Additional information in that regard has been provided by Mercer. The Government has adhered to the caps that were set in place.

It has not. Richie Boucher is paid far more than that.

It has, and the appointment of the chief executive of AIB was in line with that. I hear all the wonderful words being said by some people, but they allowed this to happen under their watch. Things are different now. I consider a pension of €500,000 to be truly extraordinary. There is a moral responsibility on individuals to deal with that. As I said, the chief executive has written to former senior executives. I do not know the contractual arrangements that were arrived at with many of these pensions, but that is a matter for examination.

They did not fulfil the contracts.

I have pointed out to Deputy Adams the reflections regarding the bank's capacity to meet its pensions.

I join the Taoiseach and Deputy Kelleher in condemning the vile murder of Mr. David Black in Northern Ireland and I express my sympathy to his family. This does not represent a return to the dark ages, but it is a horrible reminder of things that happened here a decade or so ago. No one in this House has any truck with that sort of activity. The message should go out loud and clear from the Chamber. There is unanimous support for the family and condemnation of the terrorists who brought about this awful crime.

Hear, hear.

My question about banking pensions is a follow-on from the Taoiseach's comments. When the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, said he could do nothing about it, legally and technically he was correct. It would be interesting if the issue faced a challenge in the courts. If we cannot do anything about the past, why can we not do something about the current situation? Three prominent bankers appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform last week. One of them, Mr. Richie Boucher, receives €620,000 a year; another, Mr. Mike Aynsley of IBRC receives €866,000; and the pauper of the pack, Mr. David Duffy, receives €500,000 per year.

The Government can do something. All three of the banks have remuneration committees that approve these outrageous salaries to bankers. Representatives of the Government sit on the remuneration committees in the form of public interest directors. The chairman of the Bank of Ireland remuneration committee is Mr. Joe Walsh, a former Minister with responsibility for agriculture. This means Mr. Walsh has approved the sum of €620,000 for Mr. Boucher and his pension. It also means Mr. Walsh approved the payment of approximately €400,000 per year, or €8,000 per week, to Mr. Archie Kane as governor of the Bank of Ireland. By proxy, the Government has approved it.

I ask the Taoiseach whether the public interest directors have any interest in the public. The public and the Government cannot possibly approve of these payments. I hope this is a constructive suggestion. The Taoiseach should consider calling in the public interest directors representing the Taoiseach, me and the people to tell them the Government will no longer tolerate payments of this kind and that it requires the heads of banks not to be paid a red cent more than the €169,000 paid to the Minister for Finance, who has responsibility for all banks.

Hear, hear.

The appointments made by this Government are within the cap, as outlined by the Minister for Finance. The chief executive of AIB is under the cap of €500,000 and remuneration of the Irish Life & Permanent chief executive is also in line with the cap. It is not open to the Minister to change contractual arrangements arrived at by a previous Administration. Deputy Shane Ross is well aware of that.

The Government said it would do so.

Deputy Ross asked an interesting question about the role and responsibilities of the public interest directors. I have not met the public interest directors but recently in the Dáil I referred to my intention to look at the remit of the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with mortgage arrears and to expand it into banking in general.

In what year?

Clearly a number of banking decisions must be made in the time ahead. It may be possible to see what the relationship between public interest directors and their role in respect of public interest can be in terms of communicating their views on what is happening at the boards of banks and to hear directly from the representatives of the people on the situation.

The appointments made by this Government are within the agreed cap. The chief executive of AIB has written to former senior executives with regard to the levels of the pensions they receive.

Let us ask the fox to bring back the hens it stole.

There is a moral responsibility on those who allegedly receive extraordinarily high levels of pension to do something about it. I hope they do.

There should be a no-tolerance policy for these salaries. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware, as is the Minister for Finance, that Mr. Boucher is paid nearly four times the salary of the Minister for Finance and over three times the salary of the Taoiseach. That is not making a judgment on the Taoiseach's salary, but it tells us a lot about what these people receive. These are rewards for failure.

The basic problem is the relationship between the Government and the banks. If the Government is so detached from them, and we constantly hear that there is nothing that can be done and that the banks must have a commercial mandate and operate independently, what do the public interest directors do if they do not sit on the remuneration committee and rubber-stamp outrageous amounts of pay? Does the Taoiseach have no influence on them? Can he not call them in and say there can be no more tolerance of these payments and that they are to stop now? At least three of them are ex-politicians. Is it not the view of the Taoiseach and does he not convey it to them in order that they can convey it to the boards in question to stop these outrageous payments? There is a direct line of accountability and the Taoiseach can start it by giving specific instructions that the payments are not to continue.

The Deputy's question is whether we are entitled to change contractual arrangements arrived at, agreed and signed off on. The Government has made two appointments, both of which were subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, and they are in line with the cap. I am not sure how the conditions of contractual arrangements previously arrived at are vested. In terms of the legal position on the level of pension paid, the Minister for Finance has set out the legal constraints imposed upon him. This is an issue of enormous concern to the hard-pressed and challenged public in these economic circumstances. I hope the persons in receipt of extraordinary pensions reflect on the issue of moral responsibility in these challenging times.

The Government will present the 2013 budget in the first week of December. It will try to reflect the budget in as equitable, affordable and fair a manner as possible. The issue Deputy Ross raises, quite rightly, as a matter of public concern is one on which we will reflect. I will reflect on the role and responsibilities of public interest directors in the banks in the context of the expansion of the remit of the Cabinet sub-committee dealing with mortgage arrears and banking in general.