Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

I do not want to hold up the debate but it is important that we address the interpretation provisions and understand the justification.

The Minister of State appears to be somewhat stung that people would suggest that those earning €21,000 should be asked to contribute. He is saying this is a necessity but he will recognise that when Fine Gael put forward proposals we deliberately excluded people at that level. We had a conscious view that public servants earning below a certain level of income have been asked to contribute already and they do face difficulties. It is worth saying that a person on €21,000, which is the equivalent salary of someone on the cleaning staff here in the House, is paying 20% income tax, the 2% Lenihan levy, so to speak, 4% PRSI, the 4% health levy, the 6% pension levy introduced in February and now they are to contribute again with a levy of 5% on their earnings. It would be folly for the Minister to suggest that the people on low earnings who are in this category do not make a contribution, that they have broad shoulders and are able to bear the adjustment in the economy.

The Minister of State is right. We face grave challenges but the question being raised is not whether we face grave challenges but the way that burden is shared. Should people on very modest income by the standard of the Minister of State or any of the Deputies debating this Bill be asked to pay a contribution that, on their after tax income, is greater in many cases than people on far higher income? It does not seem fair when one considers that the Government had all the wisdom of the Minister of State and his senior colleagues sitting around the table and deciding how they would share this burden of adjustment in a way that would be fair. I cannot fathom how they came up with the notion that people on the lowest income should make the biggest proportionate sacrifice. It is difficult for the people affected who are trying to keep families fed and mortgages paid. It is very difficult for them to understand and there is a great deal of fury among the people who are caught.

The Minister needs to justify before the dock of his colleagues the reason he has made this selection when there were other ways he could have dealt with this issue, and other parties have offered ways of dealing with that. The Minister may quibble with what we are doing - there is always room to quibble - but the principle that he asked the highest proportion of contribution from those on lowest pay is one he would not ask if he was on this side of the House. He would rise up to his full height and use all the immense eloquence at his disposal to excoriate a Government that was doing it.

See this speech in context