Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

Perhaps this was not benchmarking in the formal sense but I referred to the remuneration committee. I was in the public service, albeit as an adviser, until 2002 and it seemed to me that when the private sector was running away with itself, as it was in that period, there was a feeling that public servants at the top were no less entitled to good remuneration than top bank executives. I regarded it then, and I regard it even more strongly now, as an unrealistic aspiration. A wide gap developed between a Secretary General and an assistant secretary general. There are knock-on pension effects of that and, as we can see in the case of one or two people who have recently retired from the public service, the benefits are extraordinarily generous. Points of fairness arise.

The point of fairness that I find most difficult to deal with is not to do with the generality of the public sector versus the generality of the private sector. Detailed figures have been put on the record this of this House to some extent but particularly in the Dáil on the comparability of public service pensions and private sector pensions. The area of fairness with which I have most difficulty is only within Government control to a limited extent, namely, the exorbitant remuneration, including bonuses and add-on benefits, that exist mainly, but not exclusively, in the private sector. There are one or two instances in the public sector but not very many and not at the same level. A question arises in people's minds, when legal and other investigatory procedures that will only affect a limited number of people are completed, whether that will restore a greater degree of fairness. We are coming down to very philosophical questions about the economic organisation of our society, which has a very substantial market element, even if that is now having to draw its horns in. That means there are no upper limits on remuneration in the private sector.

Reference was made to the Swedish plan but there were quite deep social welfare cuts in what was admittedly an extraordinarily generous welfare scenario. As I said recently, I am glad to note that on this occasion, Age Action Ireland circulated a bulletin with the editorial expressing satisfaction that old people are not affected by the current set of measures.

There are 2 million people at work, not 1.8 million. There may be 300,000 on the live register but the figure for those at work is not lower than 2 million.