Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

This is not a cynical motion, as a previous speaker suggested. Fine Gael has been very honest about the issue of public sector pay. During the benchmarking process eight or nine years ago, it pointed out that benchmarking payments would not be sustainable if funded from tax receipts from developers and banks. We stated they should be based on productivity and efficiencies and that, if the were not, they would not be sustainable.

Fine Gael was the first party to call for the national wage agreement to be suspended and the first to say there should be pay cuts for public servants on higher incomes. It is a testament to the responsibility and strength of the party that it was prepared to do so. There are not many Opposition parties or parties competing to be in government in Europe that were prepared to be as honest as Fine Gael. It probably cost us votes but Fine Gael is all about telling people the truth and pointing out solutions to real problems.

In cutting public service pay, it was crucial that the Government be fair and be seen to be such. The way the cuts were achieved was unfair. It was not right to cut the pay of those earning under, say, €30,000, €20,000 or €15,000. The Government should certainly have protected the first €15,000, €20,000 or €30,000 of everyone's income. The Government needed to be seen to be fair in ensuring that those at the higher level, who could most afford to pay, would take the biggest cuts. This motion states the Government exempted one class of public servant, including those at assistant secretary level and other senior staff in some of the State agencies and local authorities. This undermined the policy that was necessary.

It is important that the Government not only reverse its decision on senior civil servants but also that it not allow senior managers in the HSE to receive the increase. Their receiving it would be an appalling scandal and would further social division, generate more anger among public servants and make it more difficult to implement the policies that must be implemented. We should not allow a second class of people at the top of the HSE to avoid further pay cuts and receive an increase. It is an issue of honesty.

The decision on the pay cuts should have been made and explained when the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill was being discussed before Christmas. It is very clear the provision in section 6 was included in the legislation for a reason. The Minister must have had in mind certain scenarios such as the one in question. There are others that affect disabled people who are earning salaries very close to the minimum wage, as raised by the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. This category is one of the exceptions. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, must have had in mind that the exception under discussion could arise. He should have been honest about what he was doing when he introduced the Bill rather than make a sneaky announcement, as he did on 23 December when he believed nobody would notice. It undermines every measure he was seeking to implement.

The bonus system was largely a sham. We know that one sets one's own targets, achieves them and thus obtains one's bonus. In some local authorities, every person who applied for a bonus got one. It is not a bonus but a handout.

The Fianna Fáil backbenchers showed their mettle and got great kudos for it when they stood up against the deal the Government almost made with the trade unions with regard to public servants having 12 days of unpaid leave. It will be interesting to see how strong they are on this issue. They were prepared to stand up to the trade unions and all public sector workers when the issue arose before Christmas. Let us see whether they are genuine about their convictions when it comes to standing up to the rich and influential and the staff in the higher levels of the Civil Service.

See this speech in context