Alex White (Labour)

I will be brief. The meat of the amendment concerns the question of a sunset clause. With respect to the Minister of State, section 13 of the Bill does not meet the point. I read that section, which relates to review, as the Minister of State raised it and it is a rather questionable provision in the legislation. I query the constitutionality of at least dealing with pay or taxation measures, or measures akin to taxation measures, purely by ministerial review and the simple laying of a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

This is a crucial question in respect of pay, and particular taxation measures or measures akin to taxation measures ought to be dealt with by the Houses of the Oireachtas. They should not be dealt with purely by the Minister, although the Minister's view will also be important and interesting.

The analogy with the minimum wage provisions is not a good one in these circumstances. We are talking about a basic standard of pay that must be observed across the community, and what level that should be set at. The provision for a minimum wage was introduced by legislation and the setting of the actual level is left to the Minister, with a Labour Court process going with that. It is not a good analogy in circumstances where we are talking about very significant financial measures which are the cause of significant public concern and debate, and it should not be left to a review clause in the legislation. It does not in any substantial way meet the point we are dealing with in the amendment.

I agree with Senator O'Toole and others in their comments on the Minister of State indicating the levy will be pension-related. We have gone from it being a pension levy or measure to it being pension-related. How is it pension-related? It is not because the only relationship it has with pensions is in the nomenclature and description. In all logic it has no relationship with pensions, good, bad or indifferent. Why is it not called the reduction in the public pay Bill 2009 or certain measures to reduce public pay?

In fairness to the Minister of State, in the course of his argument he constantly said we had to reduce the public pay bill and we are seeking to achieve that. This language is used in the argument and its elaboration, and the Minister of State is being quite honest when making the argument. The measure is to reduce public pay but it is not reflected in the Title. We will not get bogged down too much in tag lines or descriptions but the question of honesty and clarity is very important when we are making legislation.

I have two brief points in respect of how we are going about these measures and the debate. The Minister of State was disappointed there was not an adequate recognition in this morning's debate of the amendments of the straitened and difficult economic environment in which we undoubtedly find ourselves. I assure the Minister of State there is no lack of recognition of that, at least in this section of the House. Others may speak for themselves. The point has been made repeatedly and as late as last night and this morning by my own party leader with regard to his offer of genuine engagement with the Taoiseach and Government.

He made the extraordinary point that the Taoiseach, who has been in office for ten months, has never sat down and discussed the economy with the Labour Party. There has never been a conversation between them about it. In order for co-operation to come about, one would have thought there would have to be some measure of engagement and conversation between the two. There is very much a recognition of the difficulties involved.

We are now going through a Bill which amounts to one of the Government's proposals on how to deal with this problem. We are entitled to bring forward proposals and to debate them in the context of the Government's agenda in this Bill and to deal with that agenda by way of amendments as we see fit. That does not mean we do not have a recognition of the wider context in which we are debating this Bill.

I waited in vain for the Minister of State to tell me why or in what way he disagreed with those who have argued there is a manifest unfairness in how this levy is being implemented throughout different pay levels within the public service. Many examples were given here, in the other House and in the public media, but the Minister of State did not address that. He dealt with some other issue of fairness but did not address the question of the clear manifest unfairness of the manner in which this so-called pension levy is being introduced.

For those reasons and in particular because the section 13 provision is not an answer to the amendment, I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response and wish to pursue the amendment.