Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I mentioned the point made by Senator Sheahan. Senator Norris spoke about Members of the Oireachtas. I have not excluded them from the benefits of this. I have not excluded any group from the benefits of this for a very good reason. Again, I want to be clear about this. This is emergency legislation because cutting pay is a very unusual thing to do and can only be done in very clear circumstances when there is a national imperative to do so. I previously outlined the criteria for it based on the legal advice we have. One criterion is that the emergency must exist. The question of whether it still exists is a fair one. It still exists but the position is improving and we can unwind it gradually as things progress is made. Second, do the measures have uniform application? In other words, are they arbitrary in respect of any group? I cannot pick any group and say that I am going to exclude one category of public servants because I think they do not work hard enough or because it might be popular, for example, to exclude politicians. That is not possible. One cannot discriminate in this way in this type of legislation. The third issue is that there must be a contribution from the generality of the legislation that makes a contribution to the State. I can tell the House that €2.2 billion fits that bill. We need that money.

I will move on to the issue of additional hours and gardaí, an issue that was also raised by Senator Craughwell. It is important to put these things on the record of the House. Gardaí have agreed and have worked an extra three days per year. That is 30 hours a year. Civil servants are working an extra two and a quarter hours per week. Nurses, doctors and support staff in health are working an extra one and a half hours per week. Staff in the HSE are working an extra two hours per week. Staff in clerical management in the health services are working an extra two hours per week. Teachers are working an extra three hours per week. Academics are working an extra 78 hours per year while staff in local government are working an extra two hours per week. In the context of picking out one group that one feels is hard done by, one would not pick out the people who are doing an extra 30 hours per year when others are asked to do an extra two and a quarter hours per week. We needed people to step up to the plate in respect of the emergency. We will unwind this legislation but this will have to be done on a collective basis. It cannot involve one group saying that it alone will not participate in the agreement. Everybody is entitled to do that but they cannot say that they are demanding all the benefits of the agreement but they are not prepared to abide by the difficult aspects it contains. That is not possible. Why should a clerical officer working in a Garda station work extra hours if the person beside them says they will not do so but that they still want the benefits of pay restoration? We negotiate and agree these things. That is the way the system works and it does not work on the basis of people saying "I have rejected it and, therefore, I can have the benefits but not the responsibilities or the burdensome bits of it." I will move a bit faster. I am probably too long-winded. Senator Kathryn Reilly supports the Bill, which is welcome. She referred to the position of low and middle income earners under the LRA which was exclusively about low and middle income earners' pay. A public servant on €25,000 who is not highly paid will benefit under the Bill to the tune of 7.5%. He or she will get €1,875 back. A public servant on €175,000 - I am not sure what public servant that is - will get back 0.6% or €1,000. It is, therefore, geared towards the lowest paid.