Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We could debate forever the general economic picture. When the Minister compares the pay of low-paid public servants with pay in the private sector he will be aware that we now rank second only to the United States for low pay. He will be aware that people in the private sector work on zero-hours contracts and what amounts to poverty wages. He should not take any succour from this and should not brag about benchmarking public sector workers against that kind of scenario that is faced by so many. The legislation may be well named because it will undoubtedly confirm to lower-paid public servants that whatever about the macroeconomic picture - we could debate that and would probably not get consensus across the floor on it - certainly the emergency regime is still very real in their households.

As I said in my opening comments, my fundamental issue is that the only place in which full unwinding is envisaged and set out in black and white in this legislation refers to income not at €65,000 and lower but for €65,000 and higher, for €110,000, if one does not mind, and higher in two tranches and three tranches respectively. That can be contrasted with what is afforded to those earning less than €65,000. That is by any definition partial. I can understand from the perspective of public sector workers who have been repeatedly hammered that any relief is relief. I acknowledge that is how people will see it, but it is not lost on people that there is a direct contrast between those on less than €65,000 and those earning over €65,000.

I have no issue with pay moderation in the public sector and I have argued that with the Minister previously in terms of reining in some of the excessive pay and pensions of a small minority within the service. That needs to happen. However, the fundamental inequity here is partial unwinding for some and for lowered portions of income as against full unwinding for those on higher incomes and in some cases excessive levels of income in the public sector. There is a real issue about that.

The Minister bragged that he had negotiated out these agreements eyeball to eyeball with trade unions. He did that with the explicit threat that they had to agree or else there would be legislation. He should bear that in mind.

The turning point for industrial relations and collective agreements within the public sector, in terms of the employer, namely, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the State, now being about to step in and legislate in the absence of agreement, was a retrograde step. I am sure we will not agree on that either. I would also like to reference a point made by Deputy Healy on section 4, the amendments to which have been ruled out of order. Section 4 amends the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013 to extend by a further two years the suspension of the operation of incremental pay scales with respect to any public servants not encompassed by registered collective agreements, which in my opinion means those who will not play ball with the Minister - specifically, the TUI and the teachers.