I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Private Members' motion before the House. As with other speakers on this side of the House I believe the motion represents opportunistic politics at its best. More constructive motions could have been forwarded, especially by the individual heading this motion. It is in no way constructive and does not take account of all the facts.

We must consider the overall context of the adjustments that took place and the realities of several recent budgets to get an overall insight, rather than simply taking an element of public sector workers and pay reductions in the last budget. It is fairer to examine what has taken place in the past three budgets. In doing so, one gets a better idea of what is at issue and of the differences in pay. Public service salaries up to €125,000 will be reduced by 5% for the first €30,000 of salary, 7.5% for the next €40,000 of salary and 10% for the next €55,000 of salary. This produces overall reductions in salary ranging from 5% to just less than 8% in the case of salaries of €125,000. This is a progressive, measured reduction which provides that those on higher salaries will contribute more.

The reductions in rates of pay for public servants earning in excess of €125,000 are based on those recommended in report No. 44 of the Review Body on Higher Level Remuneration. The review body made recommendations on appropriate reductions on a sample number of posts. Since it was a sample, the recommendations have been extended and adapted as necessary to cover groups not specifically examined. The scale of adjustment provided for in the legislation related to secretaries general, deputy secretaries general and related grades. In reaching the decision, it was emphasised that the pay of assistant secretaries was found by the review body not to be out of line having regard to its comparative rates in the eurozone. This point should be considered very closely in respect of this motion.

It is worth emphasising the Government has applied the pay reductions in a progressive way. As with all adjustments to the cost of public service pay, the result is lower paid public servants have suffered less of a net loss compared to those in higher paid grades. For example, over the course of the three budgets since Autumn 2008, a clerical officer on the mid point of the pay scale has suffered a net loss of 11.7% of pay. The loss is still significant, of course, but let us compare it to the net loss of those on higher pay grades. In the same period, the assistant secretary grade has suffered a net loss in pay in excess of 24%, while a deputy secretary has suffered a net loss of in excess of 27% of pay. These are the facts and figures we must consider in respect of this motion. When one considers the facts and figures, this motion should not be even before the House today, because the facts are stacked against the Opposition.

I have no doubt the motion will be defeated. One good aspect of this motion is it provides everyone with the opportunity to present the facts as we know them. It also affords an opportunity to explain the scenario to the people. It is an opportunistic motion and this gives us a chance to put the record straight. There has been too much mis-information disseminated by Opposition parties and trade unions. Many unions are peddling this view locally to public sector workers and causing further division.

Ultimately, we must get our house in order. I hope we can return to a situation whereby our union representatives could come back into Government Buildings and re-start negotiations not only for the good of the lower paid, but for all public sector workers and to ensure job security and value for money is realised in future.

See this speech in context