John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a little unreal in a sense to be discussing this issue after listening to the previous debate on social welfare rates. Those who are marginalised and in receipt of some benefit from the State will be dealt with in the context of the forthcoming budget by a decision we will make that day in this House. The following day their lifestyle and household income, already limited, will most certainly be changed, perhaps dramatically.

Contrast this with what we have experienced in the last few years, with people feeling they were in a position of entitlement and that they were an elite and untouchable group. It does not say many positive things about our society or us as politicians and the way we legislated or dealt with the affairs of State, how Members of the House and those who administered the State were paid and the way we received entitlements. As a Fianna Fáil politician involved in and part of those Governments in the last few years, I accept full responsibility for these decisions. They were wrong and not challenged robustly enough to give us the balance in society for which we now strive.

It is pity that it was necessary to hold a referendum, followed by this legislation, to signal clearly to people seen as an elite that they were living beyond the normal person and in a land that was certainly not shared by the great body of people whose lives had been affected by the universal social charge, reductions in benefits or just adjustments in their personal lives by way of their employment in the private sector. They did not have a choice. They did not have a referendum. All they had was the decision of the market to stop trading or downsize. Employers had to make unreal decisions, as I know from my own business. One was faced with challenges and decisions one simply did not want to face up to. One would prefer if they did not have to be made but if one did not face up to them, one was out of business. While we grappled with all of that, another sector of society - the Judiciary and others - were receiving massive amounts of money in terms of their income. I agree the political system can be blamed for that. I am delighted the Government reacted quickly in terms of its response, and I compliment its members on the reduction to their own salaries, expenses and so on. They are to be commended on that. I encourage them to be brave to move beyond that and make whatever decisions are necessary to bring about equality in this society, as described by the previous speaker.

Speakers in the previous debate spoke about the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the troika and social welfare but they do not compare well in terms of debates, this one following the other. It shows how out of touch many people in receipt of these salaries were and, therefore, I welcome the Bill, but the Minister should go further. That might be something that is always said by the Opposition. I am not sure - it is my first time to be in opposition - but we should know the salaries of those in AIB, Anglo, the National Treasury Management Agency and so on. They should not come before the Committee of Public Accounts and say they do not intend telling us how much they earn. We should know what they earn. The taxpayers pay their taxes and they expect transparency now. It is not a case of politics as usual, thanks be to God. It is change and reform.

Regarding reform, I differ from the Minister on some aspects of it but reform in a positive direction in terms of moving us away from where we stand now politically and the way we administer our country is hugely important to our success in the private sector, and in the public sector about which I have said a great deal. There are many good people in the public sector who will be heartened by some of the actions the Minister will take and who will act accordingly in their jobs and deliver us a service we can be proud of and that can be at the cutting edge of development in terms of the public sector and service delivery within Europe. We are a small enough country to be able to turn quickly and achieve that and to be that example for others to follow, and looking at what has happened in other countries in Europe in recent months in terms of their financial policy and so on it is obvious they need reform. They need to detach themselves from whatever position they are in and reattach themselves to the reforms the ordinary people in the street want and the certainty in their lives they want from these budgets. What Europe is doing currently is causing so much uncertainty it is difficult to work or trade in terms of tomorrow or the day after. Everything is done for the here and now and, almost certainly, it is done in cash. That will require us to reform our system and get confidence back. These measures will bring us somewhat nearer to getting confidence back.

I welcome the other amendment the Minister will introduce on the reduction rate of 20% in public service pensions. It was wrong that senior civil servants and politicians had pensions which I understand were to the value of almost €6 million when they were worked out. The Minister is right to bring forward that amendment and to send out the message that such pensions will no longer be tolerated either for those of us in this House or for those involved in the administration of this country.

In terms of the others - the 99 people in education and those in Coillte - Deputy Fleming will introduce a number of amendments which should be given serious consideration. If it is not business as usual, and it cannot be, it cannot be business as usual in this House either. In the spirit of proper governance, and acknowledging the huge majority the Government has, the Opposition will have some reasonable suggestions to make. Deputy Fleming's suggestion that, in terms of the semi-State bodies listed, the salaries would not exceed €250,000, and €200,000 in education, should be looked at positively by the Minister. As the Minister did when he was in opposition, we discussed the amendments. We are serious about them. I accept the Minister might ask why we did not do it when we were in Government but let us park all of that political guff and examine where we are now and where we are going because as an Opposition we are here to assist and to put forward our views. A certain balance is needed in terms of the democratic nature of this House because of the Government majority, and I respectfully propose that when these amendments are discussed some leeway should be given on them.

In terms of the Croke Park agreement mentioned by Deputy Buttimer, and benchmarking, I believe the agreement is not sustainable. We need to examine it. That is not to say we should examine the salaries and commitments made to the front line service operators, but other aspects of this deal must be examined. These relate to the delivery of real reform in terms of value for money and doing business differently, including outsourcing, procurement and bringing the services together. I have heard the Minister speak about this and it is up to those who serve with us to do that. It is not a case of "us" and "them". I believe that all of those Departments and agencies serve with us in this House and they must look at themselves in terms of ensuring that they give value for money, that they have the right numbers of staff, that board members are attending, and that the 145 quangos built up over the past 15 years are reduced drastically to size. All of that must be done to address the public mood and to give that confidence. That is the reason we were elected here. We have had a result from the last election. I am responding to it as positively as I can but the Croke Park deal must come under scrutiny because we cannot deliver a budget looking at only one side of the equation. If the other side of that budget governed by the Croke Park deal is not delivering in terms of reforms and what is necessary to make this country run better, it must be questioned constructively by us. It does not just stop at the salaries for the high players, but in terms of the delivery of all the reform that is urgently needed.

See this speech in context