Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael)

I will not take up my ten-minute allocation in case I cut other speakers short.

Senator Darragh O'Brien raised several matters about costs and I wish to provide him with some more information on them. The Taoiseach's office now costs 47% less than his predecessor's with a much small cadre of people advising the current Taoiseach than was the case with other taoisigh.

While I agree there needs to be pay restraint, there must also be pension restraint. I recall the consternation in RTE when on the communications committee in the previous Dáil over some in the public sector receiving a defined benefit pension while others were receiving a defined contribution pension. It is a difficult issue. The Estimates stated pension provision in 2012 would cost the State €3 billion. This is a large amount of money but the majority in receipt of it have put in a good shift for the State.

The judges who did not take a voluntary pay reduction were the main reason the recent referendum on judicial pay was passed. I do not agree with voluntary reductions in salaries. The State should legislate for pay reductions for everyone, not for some. We are here to legislate and we must take the consequences if people are displeased with legislation.

The 20% levy on those receiving over €100,000 in public service pensions was proposed at a Fine Gael Parliamentary Party meeting by Deputy Paschal Donohoe. It was attached quickly to this legislation. While we would all like to go above the 20% rate, the Attorney General warned that, taking into account other considerations such as the universal social charge, PRSI and PAYE levies, a pension recipient could take a legal case and win. There is no point in introducing legislation that will not stand up in the courts.

One concern about public sector management structures is there is no analysis of performance-related pay of individuals. The best example is the 100 or so highly paid academics who are world leaders in their fields and have magnificent contacts with industry. If they can prove they have created jobs and attracted investment, I would not be opposed to them getting more than €200,000 in an annual salary. If they cannot prove it, however, I would be more than happy to reduce their pay downwards. Senator Darragh O'Brien also raised a similar point. My main concern about the Croke Park deal is that the best public servant gets the same pay and increments as the worst. It was the unions' objective to protect this arrangement which is not the best approach. I would prefer a performance-related arrangement like that in the private sector.