Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

This debate has been characterised by a less than scrupulous adherence to the facts surrounding the matters at stake. Some fundamental points need to be made before a detailed debate on the motion.

The criticism by the Opposition and much of the media is focused on the public sector pay cuts imposed in the December budget. However, this presents a misleading picture of what happened in the public finances and public sector take-home pay in the past 12 months. Last year, we did not have one but two budgets, introduced in extraordinary circumstances. Both fiscal-type budgets involved serious reductions in pay for civil and public servants in eight months. One, however, cannot examine the effect of the December budget without examining the April budget.

This time last year, as the Minister for Finance pointed out, serious questions were raised about Ireland's ability to make its loan repayments in the international financial and sovereign debt markets. Then when Exchequer returns stood at €32 billion, Ireland had to borrow €26 billion which was unsustainable. If allowed to continue it would have become untenable not in the medium or long term but in months. To dig our way out of that hole required great determination and courage, as shown by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. Then Ireland was portrayed as the sick man of Europe. Last weekend I looked at European financial reports which all focused on the serious problems in the public finances of Greece, Spain, Portugal and, to a lesser extent, Britain but not Ireland.

Any criticism of the Government's policy cannot be focused on the December budget alone but on both. Those who have had serious reductions in their salaries and tax increases will look at their take-home pay. The April emergency budget saw serious increases in taxes and the introduction of a pension levy, imposing serious hardship on everyone, including civil and public servants. The budget was introduced in emergency circumstances with the sole intent of stabilising the public finances while the second budget in December dealt with the expenditure side most severely. It did cause severe hardship for people across the country.

We must examine the cumulative effect of both budgets. Comparing salaries in 2008 to those in 2010, a Secretary General at level I saw a 33.9% reduction in net salary while at levels II and III the reduction was 29.7% and 28.8%, respectively. For a deputy secretary, it was 27.3%; assistant secretary, 24.9%; principal, 19.3%. However, for a clerical officer at the standard scale the reduction was 7.3%. To claim those in the so-called lower grades in the Civil Service, a term with which I am not particularly enamoured, were asked to contribute more than those at the higher levels is grossly misleading and does no one any service. Of course I would expect it from the Opposition, but I would ask the media, in particular, to pay more attention to the fact that those on the higher reductions of 33%-----

See this speech in context