David Norris (Independent)

I appeal to ESB workers to show the solidarity that is needed. When people are being thrown out of work, it is unfair for those workers to accept an increase.

The pension levy must be imposed in a fair way. Senator O'Toole made an interesting case in this regard. I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with a civil servant who is separated from her spouse and is under pressure to provide for her children on one income. She consulted the money advice and budgeting service for assistance which mapped out a budget plan for her. Not a single cent of that budget is allocated for luxuries or entertainment. The entire budget goes towards servicing debts and purchasing food. How can she be expected to pay a 7% levy? There must be some degree of flexibility.

My colleague, Senator Bacik, whose grandfather was one of the founders of Waterford Crystal, spoke about the situation at that company earlier. One is struck by the difference in the position of workers at Waterford Crystal and those at Waterford Wedgewood. The former are likely to be put out of work and their pensions are not protected. In Waterford Wedgewood, because of legislative action by the British Government, workers' pensions are protected by a pension protection fund. That option must be considered in the case of the Waterford Crystal workers. What are the workers to do if they lose their jobs and their pension funds either have been raided or have collapsed because they were invested in bank shares that are now worthless? How will they make a living? They will represent a cost to the Exchequer one way or the other, so we should examine the possibility of some type of pension fund.

Members received an e-mail in recent days from a married couple, both of whom are civil servants. They write that those on a salary of €55,000, as each of them are, will pay a levy of 7.7%, but those earning almost five and a half times more will pay only an additional 1.9%. In other words, the wealthy will get away again. They go on to say that it is always middle income earners who suffer most and this is the case once again. They find the levy difficult to accept because the value of the public sector pension has already been taken into account in the benchmarking process. Therefore, they have already been awarded a lower salary than comparable employees in the private sector. For that reason, they welcome the scrapping of the increases provided for under the review and transitional agreement. That is quite right. I support that completely and will support the Government in any coherent measure it takes which directly affects the better off, such as me, to support people who are in considerable difficulties.

We have taken certain measures. Much has been done already. With regard to the schools programme, very large numbers of schools await redevelopment, new premises, etc. In some circumstances schools are renting portacabins. The rent on these is less than they would pay on a mortgage to build new classrooms. Let us do that. That would save money, provide work and decent classrooms for our children.

With great respect to Senator Harris, there has not been a co-ordinated response. I protested on the Order of Business when the Government increased VAT by 2.5%. On the same day, the British dropped the rate by 2.5% in Northern Ireland. Again that very day, the Government put extra rates on Dublin city centre businesses. That is not a co-ordinated response. We are contributing €580 million to the Northern Ireland economy, as a political gesture. The rate of unemployment there is only 2%. Ours is 7.5%. Why are we helping that economy? Perhaps we should look again at that situation.

We could reduce VAT on food to zero, certainly for fresh produce. We could have an across the board rate of VAT at 16%. We could halve this rate for Irish goods and load tax on imports of such materials. The Government could get rid of five Ministers. There are 15 Departments and 22 junior Ministers. Why does one Department need two Ministers? There could be a saving there.