Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Senator Finucane. Fine Gael's demand for the renegotiation of the benchmarking agreement has a number of origins. Its cost of €1.2 billion will not be matched with commensurate improvement in public services. There will not be a value or return to the taxpayer for the money expended. The Government and the Minister have not addressed the value for money issue. A serious deficit in the public finances has emerged and the resources are not available to meet it. An accelerated pattern of stealth taxes, service charges and so on will emerge in the coming months as the Government will tax everything that moves in order to recoup money. Public servants will find that the extra money will filter out of their pockets in the form of various new charges before they even receive it.

We are concerned about addressing serious issues surrounding the nature of the deal, the way it was put together, how the shortfall will be addressed and who will pay for it. Benchmarking was intended to end historical relativities and the extra payments were to be based on hard evidence of recruitment difficulties experienced in the public service and gaps in pay and performance requirements between the private and public sectors. Three quarters of the award was conditional on outputs that achieved delivery of improved public services as a result of the reform agenda. This was a radical departure and it was a process with potential. It was about striving to achieve best practice and rewarding those involved in its achievement and it was to be extremely exciting by providing a great opportunity for the State to radically reform public services.

However, the Government has completely blown this opportunity. The hard evidence that was supposed to be the basis of the award was not released and it has been shredded and buried. No taxpayer, who will pay for the process, will see a shred of evidence to support it. The Government completely reneged on its responsibility to put in place a serious reform agenda and there was no effort to advocate reform. No group in the negotiations was pushed beyond its established position.

The Government pulled back in respect of its responsibility because it did not want to rock the boat and all of us will pay for it. It completely capitulated on the principle that co-operation with change in moderation should be the justification for pay awards. Instead of honouring the principle, it agreed a hollow list of minor changes dressed up as so-called action plans full of pious hopes and offering objectives for every existing activity but not involving serious change or commitment that there would be differences in the delivery of health and education services, which would realise value for money.