Alex White (Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

1.—(1) This Act shall expire on the day that is 2 years from the date of its passing unless renewed by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(2) Any such renewal shall be expressed to be for a period not exceeding 2 years.".

This amendment seeks to ensure the Bill will expire unless it is renewed after a period of two years and that, if it is then renewed, it will be renewed only for a period not exceeding two years. It is arguably self-evident that this amendment should be accepted because the very Title of the Bill is the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2009. It therefore purports to be a Bill to deal with an emergency. While we have a long history of having emergencies in our legislation that last for many decades, I am not sure this is a particularly good precedent to follow when dealing with the undoubted emergency that exists in our economy at present.

While this matter was considered in the other House, I am not sure the arguments that were advanced against it are particularly persuasive. If the Government maintains these measures are required in an emergency, why can it not concede there should be a sunset clause in the Bill to ensure the emergency with which it is purporting to deal will be treated as an emergency and not as the norm. This is unless the Government is arguing it should become the norm and that the pensions levy is being introduced as a permanent arrangement. If the Government believes it ought to be permanent, it should say so. By the Government's opposition to this amendment, perhaps this is what it is saying. It would assist us all if it were stated clearly by the Minister of State that, notwithstanding the Title of the Bill, which stipulates it is an emergency measure, it is not such a measure and that "emergency" just refers to the fact that there is an emergency. He should clarify whether the steps to be taken to address the emergency are not to be regarded as temporary or steps that the Government will consider changing.

I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, stated in his Second Stage speech last night that he did not agree the measures were unfair. Will he elaborate on that? How can it be argued seriously that there is no unfairness in the provisions? Of course it could be argued it is necessary or appropriate to proceed in the way outlined or appropriate that the proportions should be as they are, but I would not agree. Many examples, or anomalies as they have been described by some, have been cited regarding the disproportionality of the levy as it applies to different incomes and regarding the effect it has on lower or middle income earners in the public service. It is not fair. I would like the Minister of State to articulate how or in what manner it is not unfair, rather than simply asserting that as his view.

At one stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, advanced the view that this levy was in some sense to be seen as a rolling back of benchmarking. He can correct me if I am wrong but I understand he said something of that nature in recent days. If that is the rationale for this measure, we are entitled to a bit more clarity and straightforwardness from the Minister and the Government. I am prepared to concede that an argument could be made in that context. I do not say I enthusiastically agree that there is a necessity to reverse benchmarking, but there is a stateable argument. If that is the case, why is it not being made clear by the Government rather than hiding behind a measure that is essentially a pay cut for public servants? If the purpose of the measure is to claw back benchmarking, why is that not stated?

It continues to strike me as odd that the pension levy does not put money into a pension fund. That is a very strange animal. We all know the moneys to be levied from civil and public servants are not being put into existing pension funds but are to be set aside in another manner. I wonder if the only reason for calling this a pension levy is to take advantage of the argument that has been made in some quarters over and over again that public servants are privileged because of their job stability and in particular their pensions and that these cocooned individuals need to be given a bit of a whack. If that is the case, it is almost like a rhetorical or PR-type way to call this measure a pension levy because it reminds the public that public servants have, relatively speaking, attractive pensions. Is that why it is called a pension levy? Because it is not a pension levy in any other way. Will the Minister explain why it is called a pension levy? What is the purpose of calling it that when it is nothing to do with the pension? It is being levied on non-pensionable income, in addition to the fact it is not going any way towards pensions in the way one might imagine at first glance that a pension levy would. I invite the Minister to address those points.

I appreciate that this point is more amenable to being raised on Second Stage and I seek the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach and the Minister on it. The global figure for savings in the calendar year 2009 which we have been made aware is required is €2 billion. I understand four of the measures that are included in that sum are before us in the Bill. I can do the tot for the four measures that are in the legislation and they seem to come to approximately €1.3 billion. If the Minister has an opportunity will he clarify the full take of €2 billion and where the other items are coming from? I accept they are not included in the Bill but he might be willing to do that if he gets an opportunity.

The principal point in respect of the amendment is that notwithstanding our long experience in respect of emergency powers legislation in the 1930s we should not go down that road and make permanent what purports to be an emergency or crisis measure. In those circumstances and from what I can see at the moment, before I hear what the Minister has to say, it appears there is an unanswerable argument that there should be a sunset clause in the legislation.