David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister back to the House. I have a question for the Minister and then I wish to make some comments. I was somewhat confused earlier when the Minister said that if the constitutional amendment is passed, the reductions in payments could not be made retrospectively. I assume from what the Minister said that the pay cuts applied to the public service in 2009 will be applied but that the money cannot be clawed back. If this is the case I am quite happy with the provision. I was leaning towards supporting Senator Mullen's amendment but I will await the Minister's response. Some of what the Minister has said in his contribution has already reassured me regarding some of my concerns.

The constitutional amendment is targeted at equality between the judges and other public servants and I support such a provision. The Minister rightly points out this is not just about saving money, but rather achieving equality in how pay cuts and levies are applied across the public sector. I refer to the 2009 Acts which provided for these pay cuts. Many argued at the time, including the Labour Party and I also supported the view, that those pay cuts were not applied fairly because those at the top of the public sector did not take the kind of share of the pain they should have taken. The conditions set down in the budget for some very senior public servants were subsequently changed in the Finance Bill. This decision annoyed and shocked many people.

We are discussing judges' pay today but there is also a public concern about the levels of pay for very senior public servants. I refer to the recent revelations that county managers across the country stand to receive pension packages of between €340,000 to €500,000. We also know that many former Ministers who lost their seats in the general election walked away with very generous pension payments of between €350,000 and €500,000. People on low pay see these kind of payments being made and they ask why can the Government not take action regarding these kind of payments not just to politicians, but also to those at the very top of the public service who still earn very significant salaries. I would also include the senior bankers who were in receipt of very generous lump sum payments, so-called bonus payments and performance-related payments. There was understandable public anger when bankers in nationalised banks were still receiving significant payments from the State in the form of salaries and other payments.

I hope the Minister and the Government will look at all of these issues. We cannot say to low-paid workers who are working under the JLC, joint labour committees, systems that they should take pay cuts to bring them into line with similar workers in Europe while not making the same comparisons in the case of politicians, senior public servants and judges. Senator Mooney hinted at this in his contribution when he made the point that judges in this country were overpaid compared with their counterparts in the US or Europe or anywhere else.

In today's economic climate it is essential that leadership is shown. Before the election Sinn Féin proposed that no public servant should be in receipt of a salary in excess of €2,000 a week or €100,000 a year. I do not see how anybody can take any more than three times the average industrial wage, given the current circumstances.

The Minister's party suggested a pay limit of €200,000. I support the Minister in his attempts to deal with judges' pay and it is a very welcome initiative. However, much more needs to be done if the public are to have confidence that those at the top, both in the public and private sector, will take their fair share of the pain which others are taking. If the Government and the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, including those in the Labour Party, are going to take money from the pockets of those on very low pay by way of changes to the JLCs, then the start should be made with those at the top. I support the Bill and my party will support the referendum. I am sure if Paddy Power were taking bets on the referendum being passed it would be a significant odds-on bet. I do not think the referendum will pose any danger for the Government. It is an important amendment and I hope the Government will go much further. The programme for Government was specific that this legislation was required and many people will be watching to see the action the Government will take to cap the pay of very senior public servants and chief executive officers of semi-state bodies and of those in the banking sector.