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

The stated objective of the winding back of the financial emergency legislation was in the first instance, according to the Minister, to give relief to low and middle income public and civil servants. That was certainly the position the Government, not least the Minister himself, stated and restated at Lansdowne Road. Let it be said on the floor of the House that, as I have acknowledged at committee, it is true to say those on smaller incomes, and some on very low incomes, in the civil and public service will get a level of relief from this legislation - of that there is no doubt. It is not going to be transformative for those workers but, nonetheless, I know that is their view, and I have great sympathy for that view and for the unions that, after an annual diet of cutbacks and loss of income, consider that any alleviation is to be welcomed. I want to state that at the outset.

However, when we take Lansdowne Road and Haddington Road together, and look at this legislation, what we discover is that, in fact, it is at the higher end of earnings that full pay restoration is envisaged. The legislation sets out in respect of income over €65,000 up to a benchmark of €110,000 a two-stage full reinstatement, and then, for income in excess of €110,000, a three-stage full reinstatement is envisaged. I made the point to the Minister at committee, and I want to make it again, that in terms of equity and of delivering maximum relief, it is my view that his efforts should have been totally focused on those in the lower income bracket. It is ironic, given the Minister's stated position that this was all about relief for people on €65,000 and less, and all about those on low and middle incomes, that the only place complete income restoration is envisaged and set out stage by stage is for those portions of income above €65,000 and, indeed, above €110,000. My amendment seeks to remedy that situation.

I have also had an even longer-running conversation with the Minister in respect of pay generally within the public and civil service. We know that only a tiny proportion of civil and public servants earn in excess of €100,000 or €110,000. The Minister will know that, in the lifetime of this Dáil, I have debated with him the need for pay and pension restraint in the upper echelons. I am afraid we have not had a meeting of minds on that issue and, in the dying months of this Dáil, I do not imagine that is going to happen. The Minister rejected this amendment on Committee Stage and I imagine that is the course of action he will take here today, unless we are in for a real shocker. However, the reason I resubmitted this amendment and the other amendments is to place on record on the floor of the Dáil what I see as a more favoured position being afforded to higher portions of income. The question that arises is how it is that, in a staged way, full restoration of pay and conditions, in all of their aspects, is not similarly set out for people on lower income.

As the Minister knows, amendment No. 3 sets out that nothing in the section would provide for increases in the salaries of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or Ministers of the Government.

On Committee Stage, the Minister stated that current Ministers would voluntarily forgo any portion of income returned to them. However, it should be noted that is a voluntary action, not set out in the legislation. I believe that is a mistake. Given that Members of the Oireachtas, particularly members of Government, have brought in emergency legislation that has introduced all kinds of cuts and hardship that have been felt deeply by people on the ground, it is only appropriate that Members of the Oireachtas, particularly Ministers, lead from the front in respect of the recovery.

Amendment No. 4 states that "Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, nothing in this section shall provide for increases in the salaries of public servants in receipt of salaries in excess of €100,000". I have already spoken on this matter in respect of amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 5 provides that: "nothing in this section shall provide for decreases in the pensions related deduction of members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or Ministers of the Government". Just as there should not be a payback or any kind of pay bonanza for Ministers, this should equally apply to their pensions.

Amendment No. 6 focuses specifically on former Members or Ministers. Rightly, there has been much public concern and disquiet in this regard, particularly in respect of the bonanza pensions former Ministers and politicians are in receipt of. It is not lost on people that some of these individuals were at the helm when all of the bad decisions and bad governance that led to the economic crash occurred. It is not just my view but a view widely held that it is ironic, if not obscene, that those same individuals sailed off into the sunset with pensions that could not be in any way justified in the real world. This legislation should not be about returning pension income to those people who are and have been over-pensioned.

See this speech in context