Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

The deduction is in recognition of the superior, or better, pension arrangements public servants enjoy compared with the generality of their counterparts in the private sector. It is not intended to fund directly the cost of these pensions. As I said, the imperative for this deduction is the need to reduce the size of the public service pay bill.

Non-pensionable payments, which include overtime and allowances, represent a significant element of the public service pay bill. They simply cannot be ignored given the absolute necessity to reduce public service pay costs by some €1.35 billion in a full year. If we were to remove non-pensionable pay from the deduction, we would have to increase the deduction from pensionable elements proportionately. There is not a dedicated State pension fund, apart from the social insurance fund, which is different. Payments are made into and out of general taxation.

A specific case was raised pertaining to a research contract under the Higher Education Authority. The legislation is quite clear in this regard. Paragraph 2(1)(b) applies to a person who "(i) is a member of a public service pension scheme, (ii) is entitled to a benefit under such a scheme, or (iii) receives a payment in lieu of membership in such a scheme". It is simply a question of whether a particular instance is in conformity with this provision. I accept that at the margins it can sometimes be a matter of interpretation and debate, as is the case with any legislation, but the principles are quite clear.

Reference was made to officials in the Department of Finance. There is a difference between what is contributed by those who entered the Department before 1995 and those who entered after 1995, as is the case for all civil servants. There was a potential contradiction in that many contributors last night, including those outside the House, were urging the Government to do more, show leadership and take decisive action although they raised all sorts of objections when a specific measure to raise a substantial amount of money was proposed. The measure is broadly fair. In terms of any great anomalies that might arise the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have indicated their door is open.

The subject matter of a later amendment was raised by Senator Coffey, who promptly left the House without waiting for an answer. The same issue was raised by Senator O'Reilly. It needs to be remembered that the farm waste management scheme is entirely Exchequer-funded and is costing a considerable amount of money. The Government is entitled to phase the payments, as it has with other similar demand-led schemes in areas other than agriculture. In an ideal world there would be compensation for interest. Until I was appointed a Minister I was a member of the Irish Farmers Association. I have every sympathy with the argument but the scheme itself was costing more than €500 million and, in effect, we are asking that extra money would be put in the pot when the State is in considerable difficulties. I have no problem with the argument about justice in an ideal world but we have to be pragmatic and practical. Unlike 20 years ago when most subsidisation of agriculture came from the European Union, today a great deal——