Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

The motion before us refers to civil servants whose earnings are at the higher end of the scale, even though I know there are people earning beyond €150,000 and €160,000 a year also. I am not in the business of saying that anyone's pay should be cut. If people work hard and have gone up the scale, in the main they are entitled to what they earn. When cuts must occur, however, there should be a degree of fairness. No matter who a person is or what he or she does, they must realise that cutting 10% from someone on €30,000 a year is entirely different from cutting it from someone earning €100,000, €130,000, €160,000 or more. It is an entirely different prospect for low earners because the impact is far more severe. In addition, it will have a knock-on effect, and not just on individuals themselves. It is the only source of income for the people we are talking about who, in the main, are married women with mortgage commitments and child dependants. We must look at the matter in that context.

I have met some higher civil servants who are annoyed that we are trying to cut their incomes. It is not about cutting incomes, however, but about having a degree of fairness. It is about the person who stands at a desk and deals with the public. This country was divided down the middle by the cuts, which unleashed anger against those people because they are recognisable. Higher civil servants on €150,000 or €160,000 a year are not at the front desk and seldom meet the public. Those on low wages do meet the public and we expect the same degree of service from them, yet we are saying that in some way they are lesser beings.

When the Minister for Finance stood up here on budget day, he knew that what he was saying was not entirely true. He knew he was not including the bonuses, which are not bonuses of course. Only a civil servant could have written such a script for other civil servants. A bonus is now part of their income, but how did that happen? How did it get left out of the reckoning? Eight months after we decided to abolish these bonuses, how did they appear all of a sudden as part and parcel of their income, while they are not susceptible to cuts in the same way as everyone else? It sounds convoluted and is hard to follow, but that was deliberate.

I have great time for the Civil Service whose members do Trojan work. This State could not exist without them. Nonetheless, whoever decided to cut off the Deputies' inquiry line as a form of action to oppose these cuts should think again. The only people who benefit are the Government. Ministers do not want us to have the information. They are thrilled that these inquiries are not being answered. How can the Opposition get this information now?

See this speech in context