Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I said on Second Stage that this Bill is biased to some degree in favour of people who are on very good salaries. My colleague, Senator Keane, noted on Second Stage that councillors get nothing out of it. Indeed, it is very hard to figure out what local government members actually earn. They are not employees but officers, a role for which they get a miserable €16,000 per year. For 33% of them, it is the only income they have, but they are being hit with pension levy, universal social charge, tax and so on. In the case of the spouse of a public service pensioner, assuming the latter had full service, the spouse will receive a quarter of that person's income. Many are on less than €12,000 per year.

Senators gain nothing from this Bill but the Taoiseach is to gain €15,900. The Minister will undoubtedly tell us this increment will be waived. I probably know more about the effects of the financial emergency measures than most people, having taken all the cuts as a teacher and a further annual cut of €8,000 when I came in here, under the relevant statutory instrument. I sit in this House alongside people who can work in the private sector and earn up to €100,000 on top of their Senator's salary.

There is something very wrong with the way in which we balance things in this country.The Minister tells me the senior Government people will waive this. Both he and I know that we are approaching an election and it is likely that some senior Government people will lose their seats. When they waive this, will it be underpinned by some form of statutory instrument so they cannot come back and say they have changed their minds, are no longer waiving it and would like to have it included their pensions? Is that the case? Is it that waiver voluntary for as long as one wants it to be but not thereafter?

We sought some small changes to the Bill. One of such change, as I pointed out, imposed no cost whatsoever but it was ruled out of order, which is totally unacceptable. I complimented the Minister the other day, and will do so again, on the Lansdowne Road agreement and on the Haddington Road agreement, in which I was involved. As far as I am concerned, and as distasteful and all as the agreements were for those at the receiving end, the agreements were without doubt the saving of this country at the time they were brought in. The Minister took a huge political risk when he brought them in and I commend him for doing so. I hold him in the highest esteem but we have got it slightly wrong in this case. I have found myself having to walk a thin tightrope because many of my trade union colleagues will benefit significantly from this, which is commendable. However, there are a few who are outside of the frame. None of them is looking for money but rather negotiation on things like flexible hours in universities. It was a bit disingenuous of the Minister the other day to discount the 78 hours given up by lecturers in institutes of technology as just 78 hours. We both know that those 78 hours have found their way into the de factotimetable which means people work far in excess of 78 hours. My colleague, Senator Healy Eames, has estimated that there is four hours per hour of delivery. The 78 hours have become delivery hours, so it is a substantial number of hours.

Colleagues in the Garda Síochána have taken great exception to the fact the Minister has discounted the 30 hours they gave through the Haddington Road agreement. It has been thrown away; it is at the bottom of the scale and it is not considered that important. I want some form of guarantee that senior Ministers, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste will not benefit from this. We need to look at cases where people in this House have sizeable incomes outside it. Decent people gave their lives to this country and have taken massive cuts in their pensions and yet those who have lived a fairly comfortable life through the public service, including public representatives at the top of the public service scale, will benefit to the tune of more than the pension payable to the people at the bottom. That shows there is something terribly wrong with this.

I want to see the Lansdowne Road agreement agreed, over the line and working. The colleagues I left behind in the teaching profession do not want money. Instead, they want somebody to sit down and discuss their concerns, which is not a lot to ask. The Minister could say today that he will see to it that happens. I also want my colleagues who are not on a full salary to be looked after. The other day I gave the Minister the example of the teacher on €23,500 who will not benefit from this. If his or her next door neighbour who is a civil servant on €23,500, he or she will get all of the benefit because, unfortunately, the teacher, or casualised public servant, does not get any benefit from the pay rise per sebecause it is based on the salary for the scale and not the income of the individual, a matter which needs to be addressed. The Minister said he would address any anomalies if we specify them to him. I am having the costings done on those scenarios and I will send them to the Minister, who I believe will try to resolve them. I see a situation where we will probably finish up with 50 different points on every salary scale in the public service where casualised people are employed. I do not want to trip this up but I need some serious answers which will allow me to support the legislation in some way.