Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy McHugh for sharing his time. I have not had the opportunity to speak on the budget or the Social Welfare Bill because there has been so much interest in them. So many Members have wanted to express their anger at the measures taken that I left them the time to express their views. However, I would like to point out that the first responsibility of the Members of this House is to lead by example. Unfortunately, that example has not been set over the past couple of years. Instead, the policy of the Government Members has been to bury their heads in the sand, deny anything is wrong and insist that we have turned the corner.

We have turned the corner so often that we must be going around in ever smaller circles, because we are now back way behind where we were two years ago and way behind where we should be today had we taken corrective action at the right time. Nonetheless, Fine Gael has accepted the broad parameters of what needs to be done to restore stability so that we can send home the people who have been riding shotgun over the country and those who have been in Government. We will be all right on our own and do not need them anymore. The budget, the four year plan and the deal negotiated here last week show all the hallmarks of a Government that is bankrupt of ideas. It is a Government that no longer has the moral authority or the vision to implement measures that will restore the country to stability.

I would like to focus on the issue of the minimum wage, having listened with interest to Deputy Gogarty. Of itself, the minimum wage is not the problem. Less than 4% of the working population is in receipt of it. Deputy Gogarty referred to the hospitality sector. Members of the hospitality sector, the Restaurants Association of Ireland and IBEC, made representations to us asking us to deal with two issue - reference is made to these issues in the IMF proposal and in the budget. They asked that registered employment agreements and joint labour committee terms would be dealt with through legislation and negotiation.

It would have been far better to have implemented the Fine Gael proposal concerning those on low pay, which was to forego the PRSI contribution of 8.5% up to the level of the minimum wage, approximately €356 per week, than to impose a cut on the minimum wage. What will happen now is that those people whose wage will be reduced to €7.65 per hour will fall back on the safety net of the family income supplement and other measures, which will cost the State as much as the money foregone and probably more. At the same time, the cuts will deny employers the opportunity to employ people and generate wealth and stimulate further employment if money was available from the banks. I will not go into the issue of credit other than to mention that this dimension is something else that must be tackled. Stimulating employment would have meant we had people working who did not require extra assistance from the State.

There will be no difference in the cost to the State as a result of the reduction in the minimum wage but it will make a huge difference to prospects for employers. If an employer was going to employ someone at a rate of €7.65, he would do the same if the rate was €8.65 but there was an 8.5% exemption from PRSI. The cost to him would be the same. It makes more sense to provide the exemption from PRSI and I cannot understand why the Government did not think outside the box and adopt that policy. Fine Gael put that option in good faith to the Government in its alternative budget, but the Government was not magnanimous enough to accept it. The Government has, when it suited it, asked for our assistance and co-operation, but when we offer them it refuses to take them.

It is ironic to see on the front pages of our newspapers today that a bank we practically own is paying out bonuses of €40 million while we, on the other hand, are cutting the minimum wage. I said we should lead by example. It was suggested here that those bonuses should be taxed at a rate of 99%. That may sound draconian, but I would like to know on what basis those bonuses were earned or on what improved performance they were earned.

The issue of politicians' pay is dealt with in this Bill. It is only appropriate that at a time when we are taking €40 a week from a person earning the minimum wage, we should take €300 or so a week from the salary of the Taoiseach. We must lead by example. Fine Gael put forward the proposal that all public sector pay should be capped at €200,000. The reduction of the Taoiseach's salary to €200,000 would have been a significant gesture. I cannot understand why that was not done and the example set.

On the issue of public service pensions, we must acknowledge that people in receipt of public service pensions have done well. I am the son of a retired school teacher who would admit that she expected some change in this regard and we all expected the same. However, it is not clear in the Bill whether the pay reduction is in addition to the universal social contribution. Will these pensions be hit twice? As I said earlier, the Government must set the example. As the saying goes, if one gets up early enough in the morning, one can stay in bed all day. The Government has not done that over the past two years. We need a reality check.

The people are feeling pain but they believe we do not understand or empathise with them. Some of the carry-on, posturing and denial that has gone on here makes this worse. We have heard one arm of the Government say it was fiction that anybody was coming into Ireland from Europe to offer help or that we were going to send a request for assistance while another was saying that we were sending a request for help. People ask where is the leadership and whether those in charge know what they are doing. The answer, unfortunately, is that they do not.

Over the past seven or eight years many of us have seen this Chamber become irrelevant. The partnership arrangements and the manner in which the Cabinet worked has meant that the other Members of the House and the people were not represented. Now responsibility has moved even further from us. It has not come back into the House, but has gone to people who have been here for the past three or four weeks negotiating new arrangements. That is not for what the founders of the State set up this institution and these structures. They did not set them up to be sidelined and parked and handed over to people who come from countries of which our forefathers never even heard. It is a sad day for that to have happened. This budget, limited as it was in terms of what could be done, has not done anything to set out a roadmap to get us out of this situation.

See this speech in context