Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I congratulate Senator Carroll on his maiden speech. It is interesting that the first one was on climate change while the second one concerned the budget. I suspect there is stormy weather on both fronts.

In recent days, on the Order of Business, we tried to preview the budget. Yesterday, I said I hoped it would be a redemption budget for the economy and for our country generally. I also pointed out that from a political perspective there can be no redemption for the current Government because politics, like economics, comes in cycles. The people have already decided that the Government must be replaced at the first opportunity. While it remains in office, however, the Government should carry out the proper policies needed for economic recovery. Yesterday's budget was to be a step in that direction and, certainly from the agreed rebalancing figure of €4 billion, an effort was made in that respect. We must now address the measures that were taken, however. I agree with colleagues who expressed concern, particularly about the way in which the public sector pay bill was tackled. It was a problem that needed to be tackled. We could not remove ourselves from the reality that the public sector pay bill had reached a level which the taxpayer simply could not fund. Restraint had to be implemented, but I am disappointed by the methodology used, which was a 5% cut for salaries up to €30,000. I appreciate that, as incomes increase, bigger reductions have been introduced. None the less, it is difficult to explain to those earning €25,000 or €30,000 that they must face a 5% cut. They are not invisible. They work all around us, including in Leinster House. Last week, I spoke to some of them who are earning €28,000. It is disappointing that they are paying the 5% penalty.

The Minister should have reflected on Fine Gael's proposal for a pay reduction across the public sector. Under that proposed model, the pay of those earning less than €30,000 would not be altered. The Government chose a different route, however, and so be it. If the Government was trying to portray fairness and get everybody to work together, it should have sent a strong signal that those on low pay would not be penalised. I appreciate there is a taxation element and that figures show who does, or does not, pay tax. However, from the perspective of introducing severe restraint on public sector pay, it would have been preferable if those at the lower end of the scale had not been affected. The Government has decided otherwise. I appreciate that the Finance Bill will come to us for debate and we will discuss these matters again. I wanted to put on record, however, my disappointment that the model in question was chosen.

Public sector reform was on the agenda last week in the marathon talks between the Government and the unions. Some people have said that the breakdown in those talks marked the end of the road for social partnership. Over the years, the Minister of State was very involved in that process. The social partnership model was first put in place in 1987, but it is bizarre and deeply disappointing that it took 22 years for everybody to conclude suddenly that public sector reform was necessary. I welcome the statements by union leaders last week that there was scope for public sector reform. Those statements must remain on the record. The type of reforms promised as being possible last week must be enacted. I suspect that relations between the Government and union leaders may not be as strong now as they were heretofore, but this is about Ireland. It is not about Government, Opposition, unions, employers or employees. We must ensure the hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs are funded directly by the taxpayer, operate in a system where absolute value for money is provided. The process must work by having the maximum required flexibility and transferability.

Last week, Senator O'Toole highlighted the fact that in France, which has always had a slightly different social model, everybody whose job is paid for by the State is technically a public sector employee. According to the Senator's contribution, and I cannot contradict him, there is total transferability within French Government departments. If there appears to be an over-supply of staff in one department, there can be a seamless transfer of staff to another department which may be understaffed. If I recall correctly, Senator O'Toole requested that we should redefine public sector employees, including civil servants, so that State employees would be willing to transfer between sections and Departments. That matter should be examined. We are not talking about making people undertake work they do not wish to do, are unable to do, or would not be paid for.

I believe we shall require that type of flexibility in Ireland.

I hope that notwithstanding the messy row which seems to have arisen from last week's breakdown in communication between Government and the unions, these real issues will get on the table. I am certain where the broad political debates are concerned that the public is well ahead of the political classes. Likewise, I believe that public sector employees are way ahead-----