I join the Tánaiste and Deputy Kenny in paying tribute to the late Pádraig MacKernan for his outstanding work as Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and his work as an ambassador and diplomat for this country over many years. I sympathise with his family and friends.

Yesterday, we heard the stories of some of the low-paid public servants and about how they are trying to get by following the unfair pay cuts imposed on them by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in the recent budget. We heard the story, for example, of Mary Duffy who is a clerical officer in the Department of Education and Science in Tullamore. Her husband has lost his job and his jobseeker's benefit has now run out. We heard how that family is now trying to get by on Mary's pay of €451 per week and how they had to hand back the key of their house. They are now living in rented accommodation and paying a rent of €625 per month. As a result of the pension levy which was imposed last year and the cut in pay which was imposed by the budget, Mary's pay has been cut by €77 per week. Meanwhile, the Government did a sweetheart deal for some of the more senior officers of Mary's Department and other Departments, people who are paid six or seven times what she is paid.

Mary Duffy and her colleagues have been subject for a year or more to a vulgar campaign of abuse demeaning the work they do and demoralising those who do it.

Hear, hear.

I have two questions for the Tánaiste on this. Does she think it is fair that Mary Duffy should take a cut of €77 in her pay while those in her Department who are paid six or seven times what she is paid should have a sweetheart arrangement made for them by the Government during the Christmas period? Also, will the Tánaiste answer the question she did not answer yesterday when I asked her about this matter? Will she give Mary Duffy a straight answer as to whether her pay will be cut a third time by the Government?

In the strongest terms possible, I refute any political accusation that the Government in any way has a vulgar campaign against the public servants of this country.

Oh yes it has. The public service has been denigrated for the past two years.

Under no circumstances will I accept that. We, and all Members, have always had the highest regard for our public servants.

The Government has a funny way of showing that.

We want to ensure that our public servants have sustainable employment and that our economy has the wherewithal to ensure that happens. That has not been the circumstance in the context of the economic change that has taken place here. We have not had a sustainable situation with regard to our public finances. It was on that basis we had to make such difficult decisions.

That is not Mary Duffy's story.

It is on that basis we made the decisions, although we very much appreciate the difficulties this has for our public servants. We also appreciate the fact there are so many people unemployed. It is on that basis that the scarce resources we have are being targeted at those who need that type of support——

There is no fairness.

——and at creating activation measures and innovative ways through which we can ensure the skills needs of the country are met. It is important to point out that many people here have found work as a consequence of the supports they have been given.

The employment rate is falling.

I have just come from making an announcement of 103 new jobs in the digital hub and we announced 125 jobs yesterday. We have a strong flow of inward investment in this country which is hugely important. Deputy Burton's constituency has benefited immensely and immeasurably from the investments made by the Government in attracting foreign direct investment.

That is because of the hard work of people like me.

The Tánaiste, without interruption please.

I look forward to visiting the Deputy's constituency in the near future for the further advancement of employment opportunities.

With regard to the pay and conditions of assistant secretaries, the review body on higher level pay indicated that the bonus was indicatively part of their salary.

Indicatively, what does that mean? Is this reality we are discussing?

The Tánaiste, without interruption please.

The Minister accepted that a further reduction that would equal a reduction of 20% would be disproportionate. However, that does not take from the view, and I reiterate what I said yesterday, that nobody on this side of the House, nor the other side, is in a position to say what adjustments are needed in the context of next year's budget. However, our clear view is that public sector reform is for the benefit of the citizens of the country. Arising from public sector reform, we can find savings which can be taken into consideration in the context of the adjustments we may need next year.

The Tánaiste has not answered either of the questions I put to her. The first question I asked was: Is it fair that a low-paid worker like Mary Duffy should take a cut of €77 a week while senior people in her Department and other Departments had a special arrangement made for them by the Government after the legislation was passed? My second question is not unreasonable. Low-paid workers like Mary Duffy have taken two pay cuts already in the past year. My simple question is, will the Government give an assurance they will not have to take a third? It is instructive that the Tánaiste has not given me a straight answer on that. The answer she did give me was inaccurate. The Government encouraged a campaign of abuse and vilification of public servants.

Absolute rubbish.

Yes, it did. The first person sent out to do so was former Minister of State Deputy John McGuinness. I recommend to Members that they read again some of the very abusive terms he used to describe people who try to do a decent day's work every day and who are certainly not valued. The Government did this and did so at arm's length and by way of the various spinning mechanisms it has developed. It did it to soften public opinion and soften public servants and so it could get away with cutting their pay in the December budget.

There is a huge number of unemployed people and the Government is doing very little to get them back to work or to get the economy moving again. Instead of engaging in productive investment to get people back to work, it is pumping billions of taxpayers' money into the banks because of the guarantee it gave to them.

Rubbish, rhetoric, nonsense.

One of the people who is unemployed and who has lost her job is Ms Mary Duffy's husband. People who work in the public sector and who have taken a cut in their pay do not live on a different planet from those who work in the private sector who are losing their jobs and whose businesses are going to the wall.

The Labour Party would print the money.

Will the Tánaiste give a straight answer to the question of whether it is fair that Ms Mary Duffy must accept a pay cut of €77 per week while higher-paid civil servants get a sweetheart deal from the Government? What is the Tánaiste's answer for Ms Duffy? Is her pay to be cut again?

Cut out the sweetheart deals.

I am disappointed the Deputy was not in a position to hear and understand what I had to say. I indicated to him——

The Tánaiste should speak up and answer the question.

The Tánaiste has the floor. Will the Deputies please desist from interrupting?

I have said three times we are not in a position to give such undertakings. It would be completely wrong to give such an undertaking in January.

The Government gave it to the banks.

When we talk about the smart economy, we should realise it is not just for the private sector but for the public sector also. It is about innovative ways of implementing change in the delivery of services to citizens.

Change for the worse.

We must proceed in a different way. Technology and new work practices will be employed so we can have a modern economy.

What was the Government doing for the past 12 years?

We will do this only in the context of further reforms.

Why did the Government not do it over the past ten years?

The Tánaiste without interruption.

Such reforms are absolutely necessary.

So the assistant secretaries are doing all that.

When we applied pay reductions arising from the budget, they were applied in a progressive way, as with all other adjustments to public service pay. Thus, lower-paid public servants suffered a lower net loss in proportion to that suffered by those in the higher-paid public service grades.

They could not afford the loss.

That is not true.

Members should desist from interrupting.

That is not to say Members on every side of the House do not empathise with people facing serious difficulties. However, this side of the House is creating the wherewithal by which we will have stable public finances and a stable banking sector.

As a consequence, we will have a platform for economic growth. This contrasts with the position on the other side of the House, where Members have disparate views on how it should be achieved.

That completes Leaders' Questions.