Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

If the Minister were to agree to a sunset clause, he would go a long way in assuaging the feeling that currently exists among public servants that they have been unfairly singled out by a punitive measure. A sunset clause would at least allow people to understand that normality will return after this period of financial crisis.

The Government probably underestimates the damage that has been done by the campaign waged against the conditions of public servants. I am sure the Minister, along with every other Deputy in this House, has received a storm of e-mails from public servants in reaction to this measure. Many of these correspondents took the time to explain their personal circumstances and outline their disposable incomes. An almost invariable theme running through these e-mails is that the levy is not fair, followed by which reference is made to people who are getting off scot free. As last Saturday's march demonstrated in an extraordinary fashion, these attitudes are now deeply held by public servants and their families.

If the Minister were to announce an intention to terminate this measure when this period of financial emergency ends, that would go some way towards repairing the damage that has been done. The campaign has been quite vitriolic in some areas but that is not true of the great preponderance of civil and public servants who are low paid. Contrary to the public propaganda, these people are contributing 6.5% of their salaries to their pensions and they feel very aggrieved about the way they are being denigrated in the public arena. The real divide in this society ought not lie between public and private workers but between high and low earners.

It would be welcome if the Minister felt able to take on board these two amendments, or whichever he considers the more appropriate. The amendment in the name of Deputy Burton on behalf of the Labour Party provides an opportunity for the legislation to be reviewed at the end of two years, which is sensible and reasonable.

Deputy Costello drew attention to the name of the Bill which explains this is a crisis measure. If this is a crisis measure, surely the Government is not positing the case that we will be in crisis forever. If it believes we will come through this crisis, then there is a finite period involved. If that is the case, why then can we not provide that at the end of this finite period this measure will fall?

I was struck yesterday to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, state that this income levy is about clawing back benchmarking. If that is the purpose of this measure, the situation is entirely different. If it were a pension levy that was being paid into a type of national pension fund and so on, one could argue about it. Clearly, the pensions issue is an issue that is coming down the tracks at us and is one we need to address. However, nobody, including the Minister, has claimed this is about pensions. It is about savings in public expenditure. It is an income levy and a cut in pay. It is a pay cut and not a levy towards one's pension. Given that is the situation and this is a financial emergency measure, why can we not agree to its termination after a fixed period? This would give hope to people who are currently demoralised and fearful of the future. We are in a serious, although it is hoped, temporary, crisis following which normality will return.

Personally, I would have preferred to go down the road of a progressive increase in taxation. I believe this would not have stirred anything like the antipathy stirred in the heart of the public service that is leading, as Deputy Gilmore said, to a wave of industrial unrest with which the Government will have to cope. I tend to agree with the Taoiseach that industrial unrest will not, in current circumstances, contribute to a resolution of the situation in which we find ourselves. What public servants had to say in the storm of e-mails sent to Members is that they will pay their share provided other interests in society pay their share. That is not the current perception of the situation. It appears the Minister has set his face against a revamp of the budget given the figures now available to him.

I am not quite sure what the Taoiseach meant when he said some tweaking could be anticipated. Glancing through the amendments, it is not readily apparent to me what tweaking is taking place. It is agreed on all sides of the House that there are internal inconsistencies in the measure as it stands, not least for reasons of the tax claw-back and so on. I am not sure that I can see what tweaking the Taoiseach is facilitating or what he meant by that statement at the time.

There is a further reason the Minister should rethink his position on this amendment. We are making the presumption that the Minister will oppose this amendment while not knowing if that is the case. There is an extraordinary settled acrimony on the other side of the House which seems to be the resolution of a man who has made up his mind.

There is an additional reason this amendment should be accepted. A number of amendments tabled by my colleague, Deputy Burton, have been ruled out of order. Resort has been had to the ancient rule in this House that an amendment which imposes a cost on the Exchequer may not be discussed, which is intriguing in this case because the cost will not be imposed until the Bill has been enacted. I am not sure how it can be argued that Deputy Burton is diminishing revenues to the Exchequer. It is a pity the Labour Party amendments have been ruled out of order because some of them would address the manifest inequalities in the measure as it stands. I believe this is punitive on people with modest incomes. An amendment in the names of Deputies Burton and Bruton — it would be better for all if one of the Deputies had a different surname — which provides that an €18,000 threshold ought to apply would provide minimal relief. I regret the amendments submitted on behalf of the Labour Party in this area have been ruled out of order.

I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, is in the House to provide backup for the Minister. It is remarkable how little backup he is getting from his backbenchers. I am fortunate to have a colleague in my constituency whose response to the e-mails in regard to the pension levy is to tell people he agrees with them. The implication is that when Hardy comes to Hardy he will man the bhearna bhaoil and vote with those of us who believe it is unfair. However, I would not hold my breath. That is what the Deputy concerned is saying in reply to the e-mails, which are a curse if one pushes the wrong button as they are sent around the House generally rather than to the person designed to receive them.

See this speech in context