Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I appreciate that. That is fair comment. The public and the media do not believe or understand the level of cutbacks and reductions which have been imposed on Members of the House. It is right that the cuts were made but they should have been made up-front and in a big package. Announcements were made in the emergency budget but there was a perception that they were not implemented. In fact, some of them have not been implemented yet. I do not know why that is but I assume they will be implemented shortly.

The Minister has made the right decision with regard to long service increments. Nevertheless, there is a certain unfairness in the fact that Members with many years service will receive the same pay level as others. In all areas of the public and private sectors people who have a degree of service are paid more. There is an unfairness in someone who has been in the House 20 years longer than me being paid the same as me. That is not entirely fair. However, having abolished long service increments, I hope the Minister will consider doing something similar across the board. If Deputies are no longer entitled to receive long service increments, I do not understand why Secretaries General, deputy Secretaries General and principal officers should receive them. Perhaps the Minister might explain why a different rule will be applied to other public servants who earn the same as us or more. I accept that long service increments are being abolished but why only for Oireachtas Members?

The Attorney General's advice regarding the 25% reduction in pensions has not been published. I accept that it is not standard practice to publish the advice of the Attorney General. However, a suspicious mind may think suspiciously. I wonder if the reduction is 25% and not 50% because a 50% reduction would leave certain Members, particularly of Government parties, better off if the Dáil were to collapse. Take the example of a Deputy who earns more than €100,000, has a long service increment of €10,000 and a half ministerial pension of €30,000. He or she would receive a pension of €70,000 while his or her basic salary, minus the pension levy, is not much more than that. If the Minister had reduced pensions for sitting Members by 50%, would a number of his own backbenchers have decided they would be better off if the Dáil were to fall sooner rather than later and would have found an issue of principle on which to vote against the Government. Is that why the reduction is 25% and not 50%?

See this speech in context