Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, to delete lines 3 to 29.

I welcome the Minister back to the House. As he knows, these amendments were thoroughly thrashed out in the Dáil. I have resubmitted tham as a matter of procedure and will outline the rationale for them. I am sure the Minister will respond with his own interpretation.

A stated objective of the winding back of the FEMPI legislation, as the Minister said, was, in the first instance, to give relief to public and civil servants on low and middle incomes. I acknowledged on Second Stage that those on lower and very low incomes in the civil and public service would receive some relief under this legislation. I also said any alleviation would be welcomed.

With respect to the amendments, the point was made to the Minister during the debate on the legislation in the Dáil - I make it again now - that in terms of equity and delivering maximum relief to those on middle, low and very low incomes in the civil and public service, efforts should have been totally focused on those in the lower income brackets, but we note in this legislation that the only incomes in respect of which complete income restoration is envisaged and set out stage by stage are those above €65,000 and €110,000. This series of amendments seeks to remedy this. Some of them seek to deal with the issues of salaries and pensions.

The Minister rejected similar amendments in the Dáil and I imagine he will reject these amendments also. The reason I have resubmitted them is to outline what could be interpreted as a more favourite position for those on higher incomes. The question that arises is how in the staged process of full restoration of pay and conditions and all other aspects the process is not similar for people on lower incomes? This measure purports to unwind the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation, but this should be done in a way that is fair and equitable to all.

Amendment No. 6 sets out that nothing in this section will provide for an increase in the salaries of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or Ministers of the Government. In the debate on the legislation in the Dáil the Minister stated current Ministers would voluntarily forgo any portion of income returned to them. However, it should be noted again that it is very much a voluntary action and not set out in legislation. We believe that is a mistake. For how long will that voluntary measure last? Can we rely on politicians' goodwill? Circumstances change and those who voluntarily forgo such income may decide they do not want to do so anymore. Given that Members of the Oireachtas, particularly members of the Government, brought forward previous FEMPI legislation which introduced broad menus of cuts, it is appropriate that Members of the Oireachtas should lead from the front in the recovery.

Amendment No. 9 is a similar amendment with respect to pensions. Amendment No. 15 is particularly controversial. I know that the Minister has mentioned the constitutionality issue, but this amendment focuses specifically on former Members or Ministers. There has, rightly, been much public concern about this issue, particularly the very high pensions of which former Ministers and politicians are in receipt. It is not lost on many people that some of those in receipt of these pensions were at the helm of the economy and subsequently when the economic crash occurred. The Minister has mentioned that the constitutionality aspect could bring down the FEMPI legislation, but I have tabled this amendment not least to make the political point that there is considerable concern that while those on lower incomes will not have their incomes totally restored, the big players with big pensions will have their pensions increased.