Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, after line 35, to insert the following:

""enactment has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 2005;".

This is a technical amendment which seeks to bring clarity to the Bill in terms of to whom it is supposed to apply. The word "enactment" is used in paragraph (g) of the definition of a public service body but is not defined in the Bill or in Schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 2005. The amendment is, therefore, required because the definition of "enactment" in the Interpretation Act applies only for the purposes of that Act.

There is a serious problem running through this Bill in terms of to whom exactly it applies. When we first received the legislation, as drawn up as required by the Minister, it applied to anybody who is a civil or public servant not working in a commercial semi-State body. The Bill also cast the net much wider to apply to anybody who worked in an institution or any type of body paid for out of public funds. I raised with the Minister yesterday the question of whether, for example, under section 39 of the Health Act 2004 this included home help providers and people working in partnerships, family resource centres and similar bodies funded out of public funds. It seems to me we are no clearer regarding to whom exactly this Bill applies. In terms of the amendments submitted by the Government and others we have not yet seen, it would appear that this applies to a public service body where there is provision or potential for a pension scheme. It does not matter whether the individual is entitled to a pension by virtue of his or her contract of employment, for example, part-time workers or cleaners on very low wages who may work a limited number of hours and, therefore, do not have an entitlement according to the terms of their contract.

It disappoints me that no information has been forthcoming from the Department of Finance to whom exactly this "enactment" will apply. This is fundamental because the Bill includes powers to take 5% from persons on the lowest level of wages. As I pointed out yesterday, the lowest level is those earning under €30,000, but a part-time cleaner earning €15,000 or €18,000 does not pay any tax because the person's personal credits and allowances will not place him or her in the tax net. Such persons will pay a full 5% gross, whereas the reduction in the pay of somebody earning €30,000 or €35,000 who pays tax will be allowable for tax purposes and such a person will end up paying a smaller amount than the person on the lowest level of public sector pay.

It was obvious in the debate yesterday that neither the Minister for Finance nor the Taoiseach had properly read their own legislation. Clearly, they handed it over to the civil servants. There has been no opportunity to discuss the full remit of this Bill. From previous experience in the Dáil, when legislation is rushed to the degree that this legislation is being rushed without proper examination and scrutiny by the relevant Minister, the Taoiseach and the Ministers at the Cabinet table, we end up with a mess. That, I predict, is what will happen with this Bill.

See this speech in context