Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House to discuss this legislation, which we are not opposing for once which is a shock. First, I would like to state that this legislation will no doubt bring a level of relief to those on smaller incomes and some on very low incomes in the civil and public service. It is not going to be transformative for those workers but in their view, something is better than nothing. Having gone through numerous budgets involving cuts, getting a bit back is better than having a bit more taken off them. I have great sympathy for that view and for those who consider that after cutbacks and loss of income over a number of years, any alleviation is to be welcomed.

A few concerns were raised in the Dáil by my colleague, Deputy McDonald, and I will repeat some of them. Perhaps the Minister can address them in his closing remarks. I know we will probably be discussing this on Committee and Report Stages later in the week. The stated objective of the winding down of the financial emergency legislation was in the first instance to give relief to low and middle-income public and civil servants. That was certainly the position the Government stated and restated in various public sector agreements, including the Lansdowne Road agreement. The concerns voiced by Deputy McDonald concern the fact that it is at the higher end of earnings that full pay restoration is envisaged. The legislation sets out that in respect of income over €65,000 up to a benchmark of €110,000, a two-stage full reinstatement is envisaged and that a three-stage full reinstatement is envisaged for income in excess of €110,000. The argument that was made was that it should be more about restoring income for those under the €65,000 threshold. In terms of equity and delivering maximum relief, and I believe it is important that we talk about maximum relief, efforts should have focused on those in the lower-income bracket. I hope this is the case in the future. I know the Minister mentioned that it would cost a lot of money to collapse FEMPI in totality straightaway but I hope that the next legislation in this regard can go further for those on lower incomes. The question that arises for me and Sinn Féin concerns how full restoration of pay and conditions is set out in a staged way for people on lower incomes. That would be the equitable and fair way to proceed in the future.

I am completely at odds with Senator Norris's "won't someone please think of the politicians?" argument. The public would find the "politicians and their €10,000 increment, boo-hoo" line very difficult to swallow as they struggle to pay rent, as we look at the homelessness crisis, as people are being put out of their homes and as we see all other living costs increasing. It is not realistic. We are not on the breadline and we must be realistic about that. As legislators and public representatives, we need to lead from the front. That is what it is about. On Committee Stage in the Dáil, it was stated that current Ministers would voluntarily forgo any portion of income returned to them.However, it should be noted that is a voluntary action and is not set out in the legislation. Deputy McDonald also made the point that given Members of the Oireachtas, particularly members of Government, have been party to bringing in emergency legislation which has introduced many cutbacks that have been felt deeply by people on the ground, it is only appropriate that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, and, indeed, Ministers, lead from the front in respect of the recovery.

There has been much public concern, for example, regarding large scale pensions for former Ministers and politicians. It is not lost on people that some of these individuals were at the helm participating in bad governance and making bad decisions that led to where we are today and to the FEMPI legislation being introduced in the first instance. That is a view widely held by the public and, therefore, it is difficult to buy into Senator Norris's discourse. Some people find it hard to swallow that the same individuals walked away with pensions that could in no way be justified. This legislation should not be about returning pension income to those who may have been over-pensioned.

There has been reference to an emergency in the debate and I am in no doubt there is still an emergency, which is being felt across the country. People are in no doubt that it is still an emergency to get the rent together, pay the mortgage, put children through school and university, heat homes, and purchase food. In that light, future legislation in this regard should focus on workers on low incomes to make sure they get the maximum benefit from the recovery. We support the legislation and in making sure there is relief for public servants on low incomes.