Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House.

It is proposed to take Committee and Report Stages on Thursday. Accordingly, this list of amendments is circulated in advance of the conclusion of Second Stage. That is extraordinary notice to give on a Bill.

I refer to some of the points made in the Minister's contribution. He cited his attempts to ensure fairness. He challenged the idea that there were many rich people in the country. I disagree and say there are rich people in the country. The Government and its predecessor have presided over the greatest division between the poorest and the wealthiest and the greatest redirection of finance towards wealth and capital. The top percentage of people, the millionaires, pay an average rate of about 26%, while the rest of us are paying 45%, 50% or whatever it is. That is a fact and these are the statistics. The separation is widening. The Minister has stated these are the restrictive parameters within which the Government has to work and which are recognised and understood by public servants and their representatives. I do not think there is a great welcome for these measures and wonder how much they are understood by the people mentioned. They may be understood, but they are certainly resented. The Minister probably passed the representatives of SIPTU outside the gates of Leinster House yesterday who felt they had been let down badly by their leaders. The Alliance of Retired Public Servants had a very good idea, but it is not the Government's; it came from themselves and is a very good one.

The legislation proposes a universal freeze on the payment of increments. It provides a facility for trade unions and representative associations to conclude collective agreements with their public service employers which will avoid the need for these contingency measures to be used. That is a very smarmy way of putting it because it is nothing other than blackmail. The Government is prepared to punish people for exercising their democratic vote. It will not stop them voting, but if they do, it will slap financial penalties on them. That is not the way to go in a democratic society. I say to the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, that there has been an extraordinary and very dangerous concentration of power in the hands of the Government and, in particular, its Executive. I wonder if this is constitutional and will give my reasons. I am a member of the IFUT which is balloting its members. Let us suppose the result is "No". What will happen to all of the members? They will all have these things slapped on them. As I am retired, I presume it will only affect my pension. In order not to be punished, they would have to leave the IFUT and join SIPTU. It is not only undemocratic but it is also probably unconstitutional. The Government has taken to itself in the Bill the power to unilaterally cut pay and pensions, change allowances, freeze increments, change conditions of service, including working hours, in the public service. This is very dangerous.

I wish to comment on what my good friend - we are very lucky to have him as a Member - Senator Sean D. Barrett said. I note that the Minister has returned and know he wants desperately to hear what I have to say. The increase in house sales is as a result of people crowding in from eastern Europe and all over the place to buy up the houses auctioned off in the Shelbourne Hotel every day of the week. There may be 6,000 new jobs in the private sector, but 5,000 have been lost in the public sector. I voted against the bank guarantee and benchmarking and I am also strongly against this Bill. We were told about robbing Peter to pay Paul and heard a very amusing analogy about Paul's accountant. However, the Bill is robbing both Peter and Paul to pay off the loan sharks. That is what disturbs me about it and I will be voting against it.