Dáil debates
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2015: Second Stage
9:55 pm
Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source
Exactly, he might clarify that. At Committee Stage, we can tease that out. Those Members will get the second 50% of that 2013 FEMPI Act reduction on 1 January 2018. One must remember that those are really only the ones who experienced a reduction under the Haddington Road agreement, in which there was a sunset clause. I will not join the bandwagon of those who say TDs should work for nothing. There are those who peddle a myth that we should work for the average industrial wage. There is no Member in this House of any party living on the average industrial wage. Some Members say they do but we know it is not true. We look at them, we see the cars they drive and we see they spend more at elections than most of us do. The question is where are the funds coming from. It might not be coming through their salaries, but certainly they have more access to funds than most of us have.
Those on the higher salaries of over €110,000 must wait another year to get their Haddington Road agreement reductions back. Some say they should not get it back but I am on public record as stating that where an agreement is freely entered into, negotiated, voted on and accepted by public servants, I would not be comfortable voting against it, and that is what has been negotiated.
Pension-related deductions on pensions is a thorny issue on which the Alliance of Retired Public Servants has spoken to us. They met a number of us in recent days and I will come back to their particular issue.
Section 9 of the Bill deals with a variation rather than a reduction in payment to health professionals. That is fine, and I will not quibble over that. I might ask the Minister to clarify what he has in mind. I mentioned earlier this issue of the collective agreement.
The one issue I am intrigued about is the amendment for judges' pay in the Bill. I note the briefing note we received from the Government Whip's office mentioned that the Office of the Attorney General spoke of this. Why would he? Is he not one of them himself? Is he not a member of the legal profession?
No comments