Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I support the general thrust of this motion and also call for support for the amendment in the name of the Sinn Féin Deputies, which demands that the Government reverse the pay cuts imposed on public servants earning less than €100,000 per year. The decision before Christmas to reverse the cuts on the higher paid public servants was the equivalent of rubbing salt into the wounds of those who are on lower salaries, for many of whom the pay cuts mean they are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

The Minister's rationale for the decision, which is repeated in the amendment to the motion, is that a small number of the people concerned had already lost bonuses, does not stand up given that for others on lower rates the budget cuts were also the second cut in income which they had imposed on them. We should not forget that such people had no overtime or possibility of it.

I noted the self-congratulatory amendment tabled by the Minister, which is an insult to public servants and all those who have been hammered in recent budget cuts. In it he said he notes the cumulative impact of the reductions in public service pay and refers to assistant secretaries, deputy secretaries and others. It does not note the cumulative impact of the reductions in public service pay for the tens of thousands of public servants who are now living on the threshold of poverty or below it.

It is madness that recent budgets have lead to the crazy situation whereby the State admits it is cutting pay to save the Exchequer money while forcing people to accept slave wages. They are slave wages because the same State admits it by giving the families concerned family income supplement. That is the proof of the matter. It is a ludicrous situation that the State cuts someone's income, supposedly saves taxpayers' money, and then finds itself having to pay it back through social welfare, which incurs administrative costs. In case an idiot on the other side of the House does not understand the situation, I support a reversal of the cuts to public servants' pay and not a change in the threshold for social welfare payments.

Once again I urge the Government, as I did when the two budgets were introduced last year, to look elsewhere. My party made a substantial submission to the Government on where the Exchequer could find the necessary savings of €4 billion. We also went beyond that and proposed how the State could find the money to create jobs and increase the tax take by employing people and getting people back to work. The Government does not understand the situation. There are very few Deputies on the Government benches who have any understanding of what it is to be unemployed for any length of time or to be a lowly paid civil or public servant on the lowest grades, including general operatives and clerical officers who are trying to make ends meet to pay for overpriced housing which they were encouraged to buy during the Celtic tiger years because the alternative was to overpay in rent.

One can hear from the Government that the next target is the minimum wage. The Government and its friends in ISME and IBEC are already building up a campaign to target and lower the minimum wage. There is a logic to such a decision from the Government's point of view. If it is willing to kick its public servants and slash their incomes, why not go after another layer of society?

The politics of this situation are apparent. Once the Government has broken the back of public servants and public service unions on pay cuts it is set to continue that right-wing agenda to force wages down to the lowest level possible. The only people who benefit from this are speculators - na machnaitheoirí. That is why it is important that we go well beyond legitimate criticism of the Government for its hypocritical climb down on the cuts for a small number of higher paid public servants and insist, as our amendment does, that the cuts for all public servants earning below €100,000 per year be reversed. Such a view is not incompatible with the wording of the motion. In our amendment we are merely attempting to turn the sentiment expressed towards lower paid public servants into a meaningful demand.

I hope the Fine Gael Deputies, excluding one who still has his name on the amendment, will accept our proposal as will other Opposition Deputies, including Independent Deputies, so that the word goes from here to the Government benches that we are not accepting this and will oppose any move which excludes those who are higher paid in our society from taking the full share of cuts which are deserved or required. It is not just about the higher paid public servants but also many others in our society who have lived and still live well beyond the means which any person should. The greed in our society which was perpetuated and encouraged during the Celtic tiger years is still reflected in Government thinking.

There is a clear dividing line between those who believe that those who are least responsible for and able to afford to pay for the current crisis are forced to carry the burden and those who do not. The attitude of the Government is to make the poor pay for the wrongs and sins of the speculators, bankers and financial planners in the Government. There is a difference between it and those of us who oppose such an approach and have proposed an alternative.

This motion highlights the disparity between the manner in which the Government treated those at opposite ends of the salary spectrum in the public service. It can go beyond that if Fine Gael accepts our amendment calling for the reversal of the pay cuts imposed on public servants who earn less than €100,000.

See this speech in context