What is the format? Is it short questions each?
Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion
Whatever Member has an interest can raise a question. Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones because they affect the transmission of the meeting. I was informed by the media centre after last week's meeting that there were parts of the meeting that it simply could not hear and pass on to radio, etc. It is important that mobile telephones be turned off.
I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the provision within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.
I welcome Mr. P.J. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues, Mr. David O'Callaghan and Mr. Pat Harvey, from the Public Service Agreement implementation body and thank them for making themselves available to attend today's meeting. The Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, also known as the Croke Park agreement, is important in the context of delivering not only reform but reduced costs. It is important that this committee would be fully briefed on how it is working, the targets that have been set and the targets that have been achieved. The implementation body is not directly accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Fitzpatrick is not an Accounting Officer but, based on his work, we can review our work and see how we, as a committee, can build the delivery of targets agreed under the Croke Park deal into our way of doing business and how we interact with the various Accounting Officers.
There is a further publication, a second report, due from the implementation body which will contain concrete figures on savings and we will follow up with Accounting Officers on the implementation of commitments under the Croke Park deal as we go through our programme from September next. The comprehensive briefing note supplied by the implementation body covering the different sectors outlines the range of issues that are being dealt with under this agreement. Some of these issues have featured in reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the upcoming report of the implementation body will enable this committee to revisit these issues with Accounting Officers. Clearly there is greater pressure on the public service to deliver on these changes. I invite Mr. Fitzpatrick to make his opening statement and thereafter I will invite members to ask questions.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I thank the Chairman and committee for accommodating me with today's date and welcome the opportunity to brief you on the implementation of the Croke Park agreement. I am joined by two of the sectoral chairs and the secretary of the implementation body, Mr. Colin Menton. I am here as the independent chair of the implementation body. I do not represent management or trade unions or their agendas. I will endeavour to give the committee an honest, impartial and fair assessment of the progress that has been achieved to date, the potential for the agreement and the level of compliance and co-operation with the agreement across the public service. I will deal with questions and issues that arise as best I can and if specific questions arise which I am unable to answer, I will ensure that the information sought is forwarded to the committee without delay.
The agreement was put in place in 2010 as part of the strategic response to the unprecedented economic crisis this country has faced since 2008. The response involves a significant consolidation of the public finances to bridge the unsustainable fiscal deficit that emerged four years ago. At its core, the agreement is about extracting costs, increasing productivity and modernising public services. More recently, it is facilitating the implementation of the new public service reform plan.
I have set out in my submission figures on the cost extractions to date. The Exchequer pay bill has been reduced by approximately €2.9 billion. Staff numbers had been reduced by 23,000 by the end of 2011, with a further 7,500 departing at the end of February. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has stated that a small number of these positions will be replaced. The initial target set at the beginning of the four year recovery plan was a reduction in public service numbers of 25,000 by 2014. That target is now 37,000 by 2015. By the end of last year, 60% of the new target had been achieved in terms of reducing the number of posts and we are confident that 70% of the total target will be achieved by the end of this year.
At the same time, however, front line services are generally being maintained and in some cases expanded. Thousands of staff have been redeployed across the public service. A number of State agencies are being rationalised and merged. I will not go into the details because we have submitted to the committee a briefing document that sets out the changes in detail. Throughout this process, there has been an absence of industrial action, which is in sharp contrast to what was happening before the agreement. Members will recall that industrial action occurred in a number of places prior to the commencement of the agreement.
The agreement is designed to support a substantial reduction in pay and non-pay costs while ensuring the continued delivery, maintenance and reform of services against that backdrop. From where I sit as independent chair, the trade unions and staff associations have signed up to the agreement and are co-operating with its provisions. I do not see any evidence of an absence of co-operation on the part of unions. Significant changes are taking place in many sectors and this is facilitated by the framework provided in the agreement, which has created an environment in which difficult decisions can be taken and implemented. At the same time, essential front line services must be maintained. The demand for such services has never been greater. I set out in my submission details of the significant increases in demand with which the public service has to cope.
The only way to meet this increased demand as resources are significantly reduced is by radically changing how the public service works. This would be difficult to achieve in the face of widespread staff resistance to change in a highly unionised environment. One needs the buy-in of staff to make this work. I would mislead the committee if I suggested it is plain sailing but there are tight timelines and binding Labour Court rulings. The commitments contained in the agreement and, in particular, the mechanisms it provides for binding resolution of industrial relations problems are facilitating the reform that is needed to make the public service smaller and leaner. Furthermore, an ambitious reform agenda has been set out by the Government in the public service reform plan launched last November. The agreement will be a key enabler for the implementation of this plan over the coming months and years.
I will now speak about what the agreement is and what it is not. It is not the role of the agreement or the implementation body to make decisions on the reforms that need to be made, the structures that should deliver them or on the size and scope of the public service. Criticisms were made of previous agreements that decisions were taken in other forums. These are decisions for the Government and public service management to take. However, the agreement plays a critical role in enabling the decisions that have been made by the Government on those matters to be implemented with the co-operation of staff and their representatives in a climate of industrial peace. I am optimistic that the agreement will meet this challenge over its four year lifetime.
Having said that, however, I have been involved in industrial relations for long enough to know that issues can arise unexpectedly. I will not give a guarantee that there will never be industrial action but I see nothing at present to suggest that co-operation and industrial peace will not continue. That is the fairest assessment I can provide. I have been very encouraged and impressed by the support and commitment of my management and union colleagues on the body. They genuinely have a desire to make the agreement work and they recognise that its success is necessary to protect employment within the numbers that have been determined.
The agreement is much more than just a cost extraction plan. The committee was anxious for me to speak about how it is being implemented. Under the agreement, reform is happening at three levels, namely, at the level of individual organisations, the sectoral level and cross-departmental and agency level. Important reforms are also being progressed on a service-wide basis, for example, the new single pension scheme, the standardisation of annual leave and the reform of sick leave, which is being progressed at the moment.
The implementation body was established in July 2010 to drive and monitor the implementation of the agreement and, as the Chairman said in his introduction, to report to Government annually on progress, in particular on the sustainable savings being achieved. The terms of reference are set out and I will leave them with the committee. They are set out in the opening statement.
Implementing change in one organisation is challenging. Implementing change in the entire public service where with Departments and agencies there are hundreds of different bodies is certainly challenging. In light of that, we put in place arrangements at sectoral level to facilitate the implementation, especially in the big sectors, like health and education. Two of my colleagues chair those sectors. It is similar in the prisons, for example, and in defence and the Garda, which I chair because the Garda associations and the Defence Forces are not part of ICTU. I chair the groups in those two sectors. We have it in local government, which is another big sector. We have sectoral groups with chairs in each sector to facilitate and help management and unions progress the implementation of the agreement at the sectoral level.
The chairs submit monthly reports to the body. I meet the chairs monthly for an update and to hear of progress, obstacles or issues that might be coming down the tracks or issues we need to anticipate. That has worked well. It also provides an opportunity to disseminate information on good practice. If something has worked well in one organisation, why spend time reinventing it in other sectors if it is equally applicable? We try to use that to disseminate good practice, what has worked well and what could be replicated elsewhere.
The responsibility for implementing the agreement rests with senior management in each sector and with each public service organisation. They are required to prepare annual action plans which set out the change and reform agenda to be progressed with time-bound commitments. These plans must reflect Government decisions, for example, the new public service reform plan, the programme for Government, the budget, the expenditure reviews or any other decisions made by Government. When the action plans are submitted, they are robustly reviewed by the body. We engage directly with top management in the sectors on their action plans, the progress being made and the barriers to implementation. I can assure the Chairmen and members that we have at all times robustly challenged the ambition and urgency of plans where necessary and will certainly continue to do that.
We are required to prepare for the Government an annual review report on progress which quantifies the sustainable pay savings achieved and progress made in each sector on implementing the reform and change agenda. That review is conducted in April and May each year. It is submitted to Government and published in June by Government. We also require a six-monthly update and we publish that as well.
Transparency is the other issue I would like to address very briefly. We have set up our own website and all our reports are on the website. All the sector action plans are on the website. All the progress reports against sector action plans are on the website and we will continue to publish all that information on the website. In addition, we have asked that individual plans and individual progress reports be published on departmental and agency websites. Sometimes there could be a number of agencies within a sector and we have asked them to put them on their websites as well.
The agreement allows for the engagement of external financial advisers to undertake independent verification of savings, which involves a review of the methodology, quantification and estimation used by management to identify the savings that have been achieved or will be achieved. As the committee will appreciate, it is not possible, on time and cost grounds, to evaluate every single item. The approach we have taken is to take a number of significant projects each year for external evaluation and have those externally evaluated. We published these in conjunction with the review last year and we will do the same again this year. In particular, we try to ensure projects are included from the large sectors. It is not a forensic audit in the conventional sense but is, nevertheless, a useful quality assurance check for us on what is being reported. Management are also aware that progress reported may be subject to such an external evaluation. I have set out the findings of external auditors on three big projects last year. They found that all three of the sample projects had demonstrated the capability to facilitate verifiable savings, that the agreement played a significant role in facilitating the implementation of the savings, and that the savings reported by management were reasonable estimates of the savings that will arise.
I mentioned earlier the dispute resolution procedures. The level of co-operation and compliance has been very good. None the less, disagreements do arise. We have emphasised that, in so far as possible, management and unions should seek to reach agreement in face-to-face discussions and negotiations. In the event that they are not able to do so, the dispute resolution procedures in the agreement are, in my view, very good. First, there is six weeks for consultation and negotiation, at the end of which either or both sides can refer it to the LRC or Labour Court which must issue a binding recommendation within four weeks. Where issues have gone that route, the binding decision has been produced and implemented without disruption. We would prefer that most things were done without that, but it is an important safeguard. It also avoids protracted negotiations and never-ending discussions. It is a major change from the dispute resolution procedures in previous agreements.
I would like to turn to the first annual report we published last June. In that review we found, based on the figures produced by the Department of Finance, that sustainable savings in the Exchequer pay bill of €289 million had been achieved in the first year of the agreement. Much of that was driven primarily by a reduction of 5,349 in staff numbers, but there were also other factors such as reduction in overtime costs - down 5.2% - and changed work practices, such as extended working days, less costly on-call allowances because of extended working days in the health system. We also found there was quite significant progress on non-pay savings. Non-pay savings of the order of €300 million were reported to us, but that is by no means exhaustive because I am certain we did not get information on all non-pay savings. There were also examples, which are detailed in the report and which we have included in the briefing document for the committee, of initiatives taken by public bodies which led to costs of something like €85 million being avoided.
Overall and in summary, we found that in the first year of the agreement solid and measurable progress had been made; staff numbers had fallen more quickly than previously estimated; services were being maintained by and large, and in some cases were being expanded and productivity had increased; the cost of delivering public services had certainly fallen in a sustainable way, primarily through reducing headcount but also through other arrangements that I mentioned; large numbers of staff had been redeployed, including across functional boundaries, which would not have been easy before the agreement if not impossible, thus avoiding gaps in service as numbers reduced and changing the way public services are delivered; and the reconfiguration of services had commenced.
Last November, we produced an interim update which provided further evidence for the six months up to end of September. A copy of this was circulated with the briefing pack. Understandably there has been debate and various views on reducing staff numbers. In my experience in the private and public sectors, when costs must be reduced quickly and a major expenditure is pay, the only options are to cut pay, reduce numbers or both. Both have happened in the public service.
The framework of the agreement is facilitating the extraction of very significant pay bill savings. By 2015 a total of €3.5 billion, or 20%, will be removed from the pay bill and the numbers will have been reduced by 37,000, or 12%. As I mentioned earlier, by last December 23,000 fewer staff were working in the public service than at the end of 2008 and another 7,500 staff retired at the end of February this year.
There has been some misunderstanding - I am not saying it happened at this committee - about what happened at the end of February. There was no early retirement scheme. Since the agreement was put in place, the only early retirement scheme was in the HSE 18 months to two years ago when approximately 2,000 people left. At the end of February we saw the final playing out of the legislation which imposed the pay reductions. Under the legislation people were allowed leave and have their pensions and lump sums calculated with reference to pre-cut pay. By and large those who left would have gone this year or next year. A small number with further to go went, but they took actuarially reduced pensions with severe reductions. Approximately 9,000 would have retired this year anyway and 7,500 of them went in the first two months of the year. I want to make clear it was not an early retirement scheme. People availed of the opportunity to go which they were entitled to do under the legislation.
The redeployment provisions in the agreement are better than anything I have ever seen, and I have been around the public service for a long time. Without these provisions it would not have been possible to have 7,500 people depart and continue to provide services without major crises. Staff had to be moved around and they were. The agreement allows people to be redeployed within 45 km of their workplace.
Understandably, there has been much comment on the impact of retirements on pension costs, and there is no doubt such costs arise. However, these costs had been accrued in any event and would have arisen without the agreement. The agreement has facilitated the introduction of a single pension scheme for new entrants which will reduce long-term pension costs. We did footnote the increased cost of pensions in our first review. Under the agreement we are obliged to report on sustainable pay savings.
If no agreement was put in place and things had continued as they were, the pension costs would have accrued, lump sum costs would have materialised and people would have been replaced. People are not being replaced as they reach normal retirement age and get that to which they would have been entitled in any event. If staff were being replaced on a one-for-one basis, as was the case prior to the agreement, we would have these pension costs and 23,000 extra salaries.
The people coming in through the limited recruitment that is taking place are coming in at the minimum because they are new, young and earning 10% less because the salary for all new entrants is 10% less than that for existing staff in the public service. This will also be the case with regard to the limited recruitment the Minister has indicated will happen on foot of the 7,500 departures. We did not ignore the pension issue; we footnoted it. However, our focus must be on the savings delivered and costs extracted from the pay bill within the framework of the agreement. Generally speaking, staff numbers in an organisation are reduced when activity or demand falls. As I indicated, numbers are being reduced in the public sector at a time when demand is increasing significantly because of the recession.
Time will not allow me to go into great detail on specific examples but I will be happy to discuss them with members later. They are included in our briefing paper. Measures have been taken to integrate the public service in the areas of pensions and annual leave and on extensive redeployment. Changes have been made to work practices, rosters and extended working days in prisons, the Garda Síochána, health and other 24-7 services. Rosters are very much part of the programme. Organisations are being rationalised and streamlined and services are being restructured and reconfigured. New technology has been introduced and there is greater use of online services, which has the greatest potential to improve services for the public and businesses but also to help a significantly reduced staff cope with the increased workload. We must examine how it is used in the private sector.
The agreement is an important asset as we continue to rebuild the economy. It will remain so, provided it continues to deliver and is allowed to deliver. The Government has made clear it must continue to deliver or the protections associated with it will no longer be available.
In our report last June, we acknowledged the progress that had been made but we also called for more urgency and ambition. We highlighted our concern at the lack of significant progress in some key cross-sectoral areas which have always been a major challenge. These are shared and consolidated services in administrative areas, back office functions, ICT, human resources, pay and pension administration and the sharing of information across Government bodies to reduce the burden on citizens and business.
We also identified a number of areas which we felt needed to be prioritised over the next reporting period. For example, we concluded that in view of the strong benefits for citizens, business and public bodies, more needed to be done to exploit the full potential of online services. We emphasised the need to move quickly on changes to rosters, and progress is being made. We also highlighted work practices and the skills mix across all sectors, particularly in the Garda and health services, to ensure front-line services are protected.
Next month, as the Chairman mentioned in his introductory comments, we will initiate our second review. We will be looking for tangible evidence of delivery on all of these issues and on the change and reform agenda generally across the entire public sector.
I welcome the committee's interest in these matters. In particular, I welcome its decision that, from September, each Accounting Officer will be required to provide an update on the agreement's implementation. The committee's work and that of the implementation body have the potential to be mutually supportive.
The implementation body will continue to seek to ensure the action plans proposed by management are sufficiently ambitious and robust in their scope and timeframes for delivery to maximise the potential of the agreement as a lever for cost extraction and reform. The establishment of a dedicated Department, namely, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, has been a key development and it is already providing and will continue to provide an important impetus for change led from the centre, particularly in respect of cross-departmental and cross-agency initiatives. The recruitment of external managers with experience of these types of plans in the private sector, particularly in leading large-scale transformation and reform of shared services, is encouraging and will be of significant benefit to the programme's progression. The Department's new director and new Secretary General are members of the implementation body, ensuring an alignment between the actions being targeted under the agreement and the actions being targeted under the reform agenda.
The framework provided by the agreement works and, to date, has delivered results. It is significant that the Government's ongoing adherence to the agreement's implementation has been endorsed by the troika and the OECD. The challenges for the parties are twofold - to accelerate the pace of implementation and to ensure that in the years remaining the agreement delivers on its full potential.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to brief it on our work. I hope I have been able to show it that the implementation body takes its role and responsibilities seriously. We know how important the agreement is for the restoration of the economy and Ireland's reputation. We have put in place effective oversight structures, planning and reporting arrangements. We are trying to ensure all of this happens in as transparent a way as possible. I will happily brief the committee on the outcome of the forthcoming review which is scheduled for publication in June. I thank members for their time and interest in our work.
I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his comprehensive overview of the implementation body's work. I was interested in his comments. I will now open the meeting to members. I must attend another meeting at 11.30 a.m. for 15 or 20 minutes, but I will return. I will ask the Vice Chairman to stand in during the time I am gone. I call Deputy Sean Fleming who will be followed by Deputies Simon Harris, Paschal Donohoe and Eoghan Murphy.
I welcome Mr. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues. The Croke Park agreement is working well and there have been significant reductions in public service numbers, pay and pensions, contributing to savings of approximately €3.5 billion during the agreement's lifetime. It is popular among many to knock the public service, but I will not join them in that agenda today. I will ask a few specific questions instead of engaging in a general discussion.
On the implementation body's first annual report, I have remarked on the issue of pensions. The implementation body claimed that the Croke Park agreement was a pay deal and that the pension issue would have arisen regardless. I recommend that it make its reports more rounded by dealing with the pensions issue upfront instead of including it as a little footnote. It is too important, as pensions account for as much as €2 billion and should form a central part of an agreement such as this. Representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions attended yesterday's meeting of another Oireachtas committee and referred to pay and pensions whenever this topic arose, as the two are interlinked.
In the agreement is it specified how the 2008 figure of 320,000 jobs should be reduced? Although Mr. Fitzpatrick has mentioned a figure of 25,000 by 2014, the current target is 38,000. This is greater than an increase of 50%. Where does the agreement allow for this to happen? Many of the initiatives under way in the public service are not part of the agreement, but they are lumped in under its umbrella. The manifestos of those in government proposed higher figures prior to the last election and a 38,000 figure is included in the programme for Government. As the people voted for them, that is the figure. How does an increase of more than 50% square with the aim of protecting public services? There is no dispute that it is not an achievement under the Croke Park agreement but under the programme for Government.
When representatives of the ICTU attended yesterday, its members of the implementation body were among them. I see their names in the report of the implementation body. Ms Patricia King of SIPTU spoke strongly on a matter to which Mr. Fitzpatrick has alluded euphemistically - ensuring service management is sufficiently ambitious. Ms King stated management in some areas was not good. In which sectors of defence, education, health, the Civil Service, justice, local government and the State agencies are sufficiently ambitious targets being achieved by management? Mr. Fitzpatrick must be honest. Which sectors are the least ambitious? If the report following the next annual review is bland and does not identify the good and the bad, the implementation body will do the agreement and the public service damage. I want to protect the public service ethos where possible, but the first report was very general and lacked specifics. We need to see more, as do public servants. They are under attack morning, noon and night and a bland report will not help their case. After almost two years, Mr. Fitzpatrick must be able to identify the areas in which plans are being delivered well and those in which they are not. Obviously, it is a bone of contention for the implementation body. Judging from yesterday's committee meeting, it is a major issue for SIPTU. Not identifying the good and the bad will not help matters.
Will Mr. Fitzpatrick supply the committee with a brief note on the implementation body's staffing arrangements? That its staff are based in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and it is relying on figures from the Department of Finance is of concern. I would prefer its resources to be more independent. It brought outside consultants on board, but it should not be overly dependent on management for the figures it produces.
I wonder if the implementation body has a role in another matter relating to the public service. It was mentioned at yesterday's meeting that 6,800 public servants were on salaries of more than €100,000, more than 3,000 of whom are hospital consultants and not affected by the pay caps. The other 3,000 or thereabouts account for approximately 1% of public service numbers. The fact that 3,000 medical consultants and many of the heads of third level institutions are still on high salaries is damaging to the public service and creates the impression that all public servants are either highly paid or overpaid. Does the implementation body have a role in this regard?
I have some remaining points. Salaries for new entrants to the public service are 10% less than they have been, with teacher salaries being decreased even further because they will not receive extra allowances. There is also a new single pension scheme for new public servants. I would put those down as Government achievements in a way but I do not see how, if the Croke Park agreement is to protect salaries, it seemed to secure a 10% reduction in the starting salary for new entrants. Maybe the agreement only protects those in the system already. That is an achievement but I do not know if it is comes from the Croke Park agreement.
What about the savings issue, as I got the impression that some of the savings are notional, that is, rather than cash savings, the expenditure would have happened but did not? In other words, nothing has been stopped that has been happening. A project may not have proceeded for a variety of reasons but I wonder if this can be called a saving under the Croke Park agreement as the money was not stopped from being spent. The money would not have been spent at all. In some of the headings that is deemed as an actual saving but I would consider it a notional saving. Is there any way of separating notional savings from expenditure reductions?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We considered the issue of pensions and rather than leave it as a footnote we will examine the matter. I mentioned earlier that the total pay cost of the public service will go down by approximately €3.5 billion by 2015. I meant to say that pension costs will increase by €1.1 billion for the same period. I made the point earlier that it would have happened anyway.
The pension levy will offset some of that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes, but the point should be made. The agreement commits both sides to co-operating with the reduction in the numbers but there are no numbers in the agreement as they were determined in the four-year recovery plan. The agreement commits parties to co-operating with Government policy on reducing numbers, whatever that may be. I may have confused people earlier but the 25,000 figure was included in the four-year recovery plan; the new programme for Government revised the figure to 37,000.
With regard to general financial targets, the agreement is a framework. Every Department and agency is having pay and non-pay budgets reduced very significantly. The agreement exists to enable those Departments and agencies to make the required changes, effect those cost extractions and simultaneously maintain services. That may mean changing work practices, new rosters, extended working days and redeployment - a key part of the agreement - to fill gaps. For example, we mentioned that in the first year under review the pay reduction figure was €289 million, and last year the figure was approximately €460 million or €480 million. It is on target for approximately €400 million this year. Additionally, non-pay budgets are being reduced because the Government must bring down the deficit.
We put down markers in our last review concerning what we expect to see in the next review. As I stated in the introduction, we will report on our findings and we will expect some sectors to see more progress than others.
That is the next review.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will be back after the next review. The first review came last year and it was only the end of the first year of the agreement. We have put down markers on what we expect to see in the next review and we will report shortly to the Government on that. There are two people on the staff.
Is that sufficient? There should be more.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I would not say that as my role is a non-executive role. It is not full-time. Two people are made available to me, and I assure the committee that conflict never arises. They report to me and the Department's agenda is management. I am the independent chair and I must tread the line between the management and the unions to ensure I remain independent. There is no issue with the two people supporting me.
I am sure the committee has come across the reason we use Department figures. The potential for confusion is enormous, and I have been adamant that the last thing we want is a conflicting set of figures. For example, representatives of a sector may have compiled figures differently from the Department. The figures we know are going to the troika come from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which is why we use those figures. Otherwise, there is potential for much confusion. A certain amount is paid out, no matter what is claimed by people.
The issue of salary levels is not ours, as the Deputy may appreciate, and it is a matter for the Government or the parties to the agreement. We are a creation of the agreement and the terms of conditions of staff - whether high or low paid - is a matter between the employer and trade unions.
What about new entrants?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We are not taking credit for that. Without the agreement and people on all sides tied to it, there might have been a different reaction but I do not know what it would have been. The Deputy knows what I am saying. There may have been a very different reaction to cutting pay for new staff if the agreement did not exist. The single pension scheme was part of the agreement, with a commitment to co-operating with that. It would be wrong for us to take credit for the 10% cut in salaries for new entrants but the issue could have led to a different reaction if the agreement and framework did not exist.
With regard to notional savings, I mentioned costs that were avoided amounting to approximately €85 million. These costs would have been avoided, for example, in the Irish Prison Service when they opened extended accommodation with much less costly rosters. If costs to an existing roster are reduced, actual costs are reduced. The Irish Prison Service comes to mind in such a way when discussing cost avoidance.
The witness mentioned Wheatfield.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. There are a number of areas where costs may have been incurred if things had been done the way they always have been. The community nursing units issue is another example. Costs were avoided because a more inexpensive arrangement was put in place.
The witness understands the question.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Is it a case of a potential saving-----
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We did not say it was a saving but rather a cost avoided.
Okay, I appreciate that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is treated separately in the report and we will make it absolutely clear if it arises next time.
I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues for being here today.
As Mr. Fitzpatrick has alluded, to some degree this is not his agreement. His remit is to implement the agreement and the pros and cons of its policy decision are not his baby. It is his job to ensure that the agreement delivers.
I want to pick him up on the point he made about industrial peace. If we were to look at one major achievement, then we would regard industrial peace through tumultuous economic times as a testament to the work done. We have seen a massive increase in demands being placed on our public services at a time when its numbers are decreasing. Two figures that struck me from Mr. Fitzpatrick's opening remarks was the 280% increase in the live register and 500,000 more medical cards being issued. They are tangible results from asking the public service to do more with less and I acknowledge the good work done by people in the public service in delivering those services. Despite the doom and gloom of media and political commentary, 7,500 people left the public sector in January and February. There have been hotspots of difficulty but the sky did not fall. Front-line services are continuing and the situation has not worsened for customers, clients or citizens availing of front-line services.
I started with a positive but one of the reasons many of us here were eager that the group addressed the committee is the significant conflicting information in the media on the Croke Park agreement from both sides. I welcome Mr. Fitzpatrick's independence as a chairman. One example of conflicting information was when the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county manager, Mr. Owen Keegan, was on national radio and then his programme was followed by a rebuttal by Mr. Jack O'Connor of SIPTU. Mr. Keegan expressed his view but I do not want to put words in his mouth. I took from his interview that he felt, as a manager in the public service, that some areas slowed down reform and that the collective only moves as fast as its slowest element. That was his scathing criticism. An innovative hard-working public service manager trying to introduce reform told the nation, on the public airwaves, that the Croke Park agreement held him back. Shortly afterwards, on the next programme on the national broadcaster, someone expressing the union perspective told us that management was blocking reform. Mr. Fitzpatrick has talked a lot about conflict resolution, how figures and statistics can be massaged and how we all present an angle that favours the agendas of different groups. From his point of view, as the independent chairman, can he give an overview or put in context, the exchange on the radio programme?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I do not accept that the process moves as fast as the slowest mover and I can go through our briefing document that I gave the committee. Let us take, for example, two small groups of staff, namely, laboratory technologists and radiographers in hospitals. Their payment arrangements have been significantly altered. Their income has been significantly reduced because they have moved from a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. type of working day with call-out fees after that to an extended working day. That is not just changing and going to an extended day roster. We understand that the laboratory pay change will result in a saving of €7.5 million per year. We are talking about people changing to an extended day and taking a significant hit in take home pay.
There are other sectors and I mentioned the Irish Prison Service. For example, the Garda is scheduled to introduce a new roster at the end of April and it will be the first change in the Garda roster for decades. A lot of good things are happening but there are areas that we would like to see move more. It is definitely not a case of elements moving as fast as the slowest.
Okay.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
If a particular proposal is slowed down or not moving forward there is nothing to stop a manager using binding dispute resolution procedures which is six weeks' consultation, to the Labour Relations Commission, then to the Labour Court and after four weeks a binding decision will be declared and off one goes.
Okay.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That has been used to resolve difficult issues. I do not want to discuss the individual cases.
Nor do I.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is not what I am hearing or seeing.
Okay.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I have been around for a long time and I have seen a very high level of co-operation. It is difficult. People must sell difficult ideas to people. As we know, people have built their lives around rosters. When one changes a person's roster one changes their lifestyle, their days off and when they work.
If a manager is having difficulty the sectoral chair and groups are available to assist them. I will give a reason. Given the scale of the programme the number of disputes that are referred to my group is very small. It indicates that the issue is being dealt with either in direct negotiations, in the sector or using dispute resolution procedures. On the other hand, we know that the LRC-Labour Court has not been overrun. At the beginning there was a fear that the LRC and Labour Court could be overrun trying to resolve disputes but that has not happened. To be fair, the LRC and the Labour Court have responded very quickly and the waiting time for the LRC's rights commissioner service has been eliminated. Employment rights is a good example of reform. If one is in business or are an employee the emerging new arrangement will be a one-stop-shop, the merger of the five employment rights organisations into two and a single application form. All of that change is taking place in an area that consists of so many bodies at present but it will lead by example. The staff have already co-operated and are clearing the backlog and restructuring its back office. There are ways that a manager can resolve a problem.
Deputy Kieran O'Donnell took the Chair.
I have two more issues to put to Mr. Fitzpatrick. The first is a contentious issue and everyone always gets excitable when one tries to broach the topic of increments and the deficit of information on them. I have seen different figures bandied about on the cost of public service increments.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
I have tried to obtain the information via parliamentary question to no avail. I was told that the figures do not exist or have not been compiled. I tried to obtain it by way of a letter to the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to no avail. Can Mr. Fitzpatrick inform the committee how much public sector increments cost for this calendar year and the cost of increments based on pay levels? I have detected from my constituents that people do not begrudge the increment system for lower paid public servants. People find it galling if public servants earn in excess of a certain amount, and obviously that figure will be subjective, or are deemed to earn a high income but receive a pay rise, which is an increment, that is based purely on length of service rather than productivity. I still to this day, despite repeated efforts, cannot obtain information on it. I have been told and I have heard that increments are largely paid to people on lower incomes and I do not want to be dismissive and call that rhetoric. I accept that premise but it does not answer my question. How many people in this country earning between €50,000 and €100,000 from the public purse will receive increments this year? Does the figure exist? I sense that it does because, on the record of the House, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has answered the question in reverse and stated how many people earning between €30,000, €20,000 and lower receive increments. I cannot understand how the Minister can have one set of figures and not the other. I am not sure that Mr. Fitzpatrick will be able to cast any light on the issue.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Obviously, the decision as to whether increment should be paid is a matter between the employer and trade unions. We can certainly get the cost of increments and send it to the committee. I thought I had it with me but I just cannot retrieve it at present. I do not know the breakdown by grade; my hunch is that it certainly applies more to the lower paid. If one takes the example of teaching or nursing and, from my own experience, clerical officer, they tend to be the grades with the long salary scales and they tend to be the ones-----
I am sorry to interrupt because I do not wish to be misrepresented here. I am not calling for that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I know.
However, I know there are people earning very high incomes in the public service who are in receipt of increments and it is massively frustrating as a taxpayer, let alone as a Member of the Dáil, that information on that does not appear to be available. Certainly, it was not available on the record of the Dáil.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I have the figure. It is €180 million per annum, and less than half that sum in 2012, is the cost of all increments. As I said, I do not have the breakdown between the grades but the lower grades tend to have quite long scales. I expect that the bulk of the increments would be in the lower grades, although I am sure it applies to more senior grades.
I accept the premise that the bulk of them are in the lower grades and I do not have an issue with that. The issue is that at a time when we are cutting everything possible to save money and keep this country solvent, if people are earning salaries around the level of a Deputy's salary and are receiving pay rises, I would like to know about it. Regardless of whether the sum is massive or minimal, they should not be receiving it if they are earning very high salaries in the public sector. Long before I became a Member of the House politicians ended the practice of receiving increments. I believe they used to receive two increments. Whether that was right or wrong, that was the decision taken by politicians. Are there senior civil servants earning a salary that is higher than a politician's who are continuing to receive increments? While I accept the witness does not make policy, it would be useful to have those data to inform the debate about the Croke Park agreement and public sector pay. I tried to obtain it from the Department through parliamentary questions, but to no avail. If the witness could make inquiries, I would be very grateful if he would refer back to the committee.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
As I said, it is not a matter for the implementation body-----
I accept that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
-----or for me as chairman, but I will certainly make inquiries about what information is available on the breakdown. I understand the point the Deputy is making and the information he is trying to elicit.
I thank the witness. It will add to the debate and the information we can put into the public domain.
My final point relates to sick leave and absenteeism in the public sector. I do not have an overview of the whole sector but the chief executive officer, CEO, of the Health Service Executive, HSE, was recently before the committee and we discussed absenteeism particularly in the HSE west and north west. The absenteeism level was very high. What was striking about that committee meeting was the fact that the CEO made the comment that absenteeism among non-medical grades in the HSE, which I take to mean administrators or people not working on the front line of medical care, was in the double digits. That stuck in my mind. That means 10% or more of the people working in administration in a segment of the HSE were picking up the telephone each day to ring in sick. What is the position of the Croke Park implementation body in terms of making sure the system is not open to abuse? Obviously, nobody has a difficulty with somebody who is sick taking leave but are there similar anomalies which do a disservice to everybody in the public service?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
At present, the Department is progressing a review of sick leave. There are people who are genuinely sick and obviously they should be treated as anybody who is genuinely sick should be treated. The tools are there to deal with people who are abusing sick leave. Legislation was introduced - I cannot remember what year it was but it was at least ten years ago - which conferred on public sector employers the same rights to discipline and dismiss people as apply in the private sector. One must be able to defend one's decision in the unfair dismissals tribunal or before a rights commissioner. There is an impression among the public that one cannot discipline or remove a public servant. One can, and the legislation was introduced at least ten years ago. However, one must do it correctly. One must ensure that one follows due process and complies with the requirements of employment legislation. Once one can go into an unfair dismissals tribunal and defend the decision, one can discipline people who are abusing sick leave or, indeed, under-performing.
I believe it was the Public Service Management Act 1997. Would it fall within your remit to examine whether this Act has been used within the public sector, in terms of transparency and as part of an overall review of the Croke Park agreement?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is certainly something we can examine. I know that some people do use it. I spent three days giving evidence a few months ago on a case from my previous life. It is something we will look at. If there is under-performance or abuse of sick leave, there is a procedure. If memory serves, I believe that above assistant principal level one must go to the Minister; from principal officer, PO, level up, it is a recommendation from the Secretary General to the Minister or a CEO to a board. However, that is not the case below that. In the health sector mentioned by the Deputy, that legislation has applied for quite some time. I am saying the tools are there, and they are the same tools that managers in the private sector have at present.
The point Mr. Fitzpatrick makes is well made. Perhaps we have a situation, and I have seen this at the committee on a number of occasions, where we are paying people to manage but they are not doing so. While the political and media discourse on the issue to date has probably been looking at the employee, perhaps I can respectfully suggest there is a job for the implementation group to look at ensuring that managers are managing. The genuine people lose out under the cloud of suspicion that hangs over sick leave within their sector. We have been given a figure of more than €0.5 billion for the cost of sick leave in the public sector. I am not expert enough to know how much one would expect genuine sick leave in the public sector to cost as opposed to what the abuse of the system costs, but I would be interested to see some work on that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
There is another brief point. The most important person managing sick leave is the immediate supervisor. People can come back to work and nobody talks to them or they get no telephone call. When they return to work after sick leave they should be spoken to by the supervisor. It should not be anonymous. One should not be on sick leave and just return without anybody asking where one was or what was wrong. All the research on this area has consistently shown that the more active the immediate supervisor is, the less abuse there is of sick leave. It is not rocket science. It is literally a case of the immediate supervisor ringing the person up to ask how they are and finding out if it is genuine, and bringing them in and talking to them if they suspect it is not genuine. Many people can come and go without anybody talking to them about their sick leave. There is a really critical role for those first line supervisors in terms of the staff person's welfare and also in terms of eliminating abuse, if there is abuse. There are two roles. There is a welfare role for the people who are genuinely ill, as the Deputy correctly pointed out.
Is it possible that at times we are over-complicating issues? In the case of sick leave, for example, the tools are available but there appears to be a myth among the public that they do not apply to the public sector when, in fact, they do. It gives public sector employees a bad name. Is there a case for carrying out an audit of the existing infrastructure? There must be a pattern with certain people. Most people go to work but it is an issue that has arisen in the public service. Can we take it that it will be included in the examination of that the area and the legislation in order to get some clarity and direction?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We certainly will because, apart from the implementation body, there is a review of sick leave and performance management. The two are linked because if performance management is being done right, sick leave should surface in discussion. If there is concern about sick leave, one needs a total alignment of HR systems so there are not different systems for various HR issues. It is being progressed by the Department. The revised performance management and sick leave is being reviewed and we take the Vice Chairman's point. The review examines central sick leave policies and the primary focus of any changes that emerged from the review is to reduce the incidence of sick leave. As numbers decrease, it becomes an increasingly important issue.
I thank the witnesses for appearing before us. Rather than focusing on individual practices in the public sector, I would like to look at the agreement and understand how it works. Is the agreement just about keeping the peace?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
No.
Is it implied that unions are on board in trying to correct the deficit and manage our financial situation so that we can exit the bailout and move to a more sustainable financial position in the management of national finances?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
No. I will summarise the three elements of the agreement. It is about extracting costs that must be extracted to get expenditure in line with what is required; reforming, because the big-ticket item in expenditure is the reduction in numbers; and maintaining services with significantly fewer people, with reform of work practices, rosters and working arrangements. Staff must be redeployed or gaps will emerge. If that type of flexibility had not been there at the end of February, serious gaps would have emerged. The briefing document gives examples of people moving from a State hospital to a voluntary hospital in Cork. Orthopaedic surgery services were transferred from the HSE hospital to a well-known voluntary hospital. Before the agreement, that type of flexibility and redeployment was impossible. The agreement is about extracting costs that have to be extracted over the next few years, maintaining services over the next two years, having increased productivity and enabling the required change and reform. Industrial peace and goodwill are hugely important. We are asking staff to take on more work as people leave. We are also asking staff to take on the work done by more senior people and very often in the jobs to which the current staff aspired. The agreement has created a climate to enable this to happen.
I am trying to get at the relationship with the Government in terms of the role in national affairs and how we changed from the social partnership model. The objective is different. What is the change in terms of the relationship and the role of unions?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I was not involved in social partnership so I am not the best one to make the comparison. It is not a job of the implementation body and the agreement to make decisions about numbers, the number of agencies to be abolished or merged, the number of VECs - which has been decided and is being implemented - or the merger of local authorities, which is being implemented under the Croke Park agreement. These are decisions for the Government. One of the criticisms of social partnership was that decisions were made in that forum when they should have been made in the Oireachtas. The key point is that the agreement is an enabler for the implementation of decisions made by the Government. Whether the decisions are in the programme for Government, the budget, the expenditure review or the reform plan-----
The decision is made with the agreement of the unions, with the Government and unions coming together to make an agreement. The implementation body is there to oversee it.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The reform plan was produced by the Government, with no agreement before it. The Government, and the Minister in launching the reform plan, made it clear that there was an expectation the framework of the Croke Park agreement would enable the reform plan to be implemented. The numbers were determined in the programme for Government. The agreement is a framework or toolkit for managers and unions to deal with Government decisions.
Are the unions in a position where they are helping to set the policy the Government is adopting?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The implementation body is not in that space. Our job is to ensure the agreement does what it is supposed to do. What the unions do, separate to the implementation body, is a matter for the unions but the implementation body has no function and union people, when participating as members of the implementation body, are not advising the Government on policy.
Is the implementation body ever called in to manage the relationship between the unions and the Government?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
No. My relationship is between the public service management and the public service unions. The briefing document outlines that there are four management representatives and four union representatives on the body.
Do the management representatives come from Departments in the public sector?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. The membership of the body includes the Secretary General of the new Department, the head of the new reform unit in the Department, a principal officer from the Department and an assistant secretary from the Department. We also have four people from the public services committee of ICTU, including Shay Cody, Sheila Nunan, Patricia King and Tom Geraghty.
Is there no one from the private sector?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
No.
Does Mr. Fitzpatrick chair that body?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Does the body comprise those eight people and Mr. Fitzpatrick?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
To whom does Mr. Fitzpatrick report?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The body must report to the Government every year.
Is the report sent to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes, and he brings it to the Government. The implementation body must report on sustainable pay bill savings, other savings, the reform programme generally and the progress being made. We will make our second report in a few weeks time.
How often does the body meet?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Every three or four weeks and maybe more often when we carry out the review. We also have sectoral groups. The Garda Síochána associations and the defence associations are not part of ICTU and therefore I chair groups involving those associations.
How many groups come under the body?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
There are several hundred Departments and agencies and we needed a coherent structure in order to manage them. We set up groups within each of the big sectors. Mr. David O'Callaghan chairs the body that monitors education, Mr. Pat Harvey chairs the health sector implementation group and there are also groups dealing with local government, prisons, the Garda Síochána, defence, the Civil Service and State agencies.
Do all these committees come under the body?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
No, these are sectoral groups to facilitate implementation. The education sector, for instance, comprises education management and the unions and is chaired by an independent figure.
So the group is like a committee that meets?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
How often would it meet?
Mr. David O’Callaghan
Once every three or four weeks.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
More often if things blow up.
It is quite demanding on the time of those on the committees. How much time do individual members have to give?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It can be demanding at times and is never far away; it is almost constant. I could get phone calls from management or unions between meetings. The more work one does in that space, however, the more likely it is that we can avoid disputes. Chairs must make themselves available on a needs-be basis in addition to the formal meetings. When we do the review, there are more meetings because we have a concentrated period then.
It is extra work for those who sit on the committees. How is their participation determined and do they receive any benefits?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The chairs get a fee.
Are the chairs from outside of the public sector?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I chair the overall body and the Garda and defence committee. There is a chair in each sector as well.
Where are the chairs from?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Mainly they are former public sector or former trade union figures.
What fee do they receive?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It ranges between €10,000 and €29,000, which is what I receive.
Are there expenses for group members?
Mr. David O’Callaghan
Only if they must travel to meetings.
But the facility exists?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes, they would be public service rates.
Is it a deficiency in the implementation body that there is no one from outside the public sector?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The implementation body comprises the parties to the agreement. I was asked to chair it and I am not a party to the agreement.
Can you make recommendations for changes to your own work programme or structures?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The level of co-operation has been high. As chairman I have not encountered difficulties or blockages.
Not difficulties but expertise, external expertise coming in.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
With the new Department some good expertise is coming in, particularly in areas like shared services. The head of the new reform unit is on our body and he came from the private sector.
He has a vested interest in the changes that are being made because they affect him as well given that he now works in the public sector. My point is that those who are guiding or thinking about things that could make changes have a vested interest in the changes because they are affected by them. No one from outside who will not be affected by the ultimate decision is helping to guide the work.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is an industrial relations agreement and the membership is determined in the agreement. The body is a creation of the agreement, as am I. A decision on that would be a matter for the parties.
As far as you are concerned, would it help your work to have someone completely independent because none of the outcomes would have any bearing on their situation?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I do not think there is anything in present arrangements that restricts me from exercising my job as chairman.
Could improvements be made? We are more than a year into the agreement now.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is not for me to say. The Deputy will appreciate this is an agreement between the two parties and I do not want to get drawn into what would be a renegotiation of the terms of the agreement. My main concern as independent chairman is to keep the agreement intact and to ensure the agreement delivers.
It falls to me to raise this on the political side of things.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That is a different place.
We got a figure of €96,000 for the budget of the implementation body. What does that cover? Does it cover the fees for the chairs of the sectoral groups?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It covers me and the chair of the State Agencies implementation group. The other chairs are paid by the sectors they work in. The local government and health committees and so on would fund their own. Our website was developed and is maintained in-house and our printing is done in-house. I mentioned the external verification earlier and there is a fee for that.
What is the total cost when we take in the fees paid to the chairs of the sectoral groups?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Adding in the other chairs, it would not be more than €150,000.
Including the €96,000 for the implementation body?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Is any other money being spent on monitoring or implementation of the agreement?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Not by us, no.
By anyone else?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Not that I am aware of.
So we could say it costs less than €160,000 to implement the agreement?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We can get the exact figure but thinking of five chairs plus what we have here, I doubt it is more than €150,000 but just in case I am wrong, and I do not want to mislead the committee, I will get the figure and send it on.
I appreciate that. On the independent verification of savings, MKO Partners is the company that does it. It took three sample validations. When discussing the main findings of those sample validations, the first finding states the samples chosen could be meaningfully sampled because there could then be a capacity to verify any potential savings. In the second point, it states the public service agreement played a significant role in facilitating the implementation of savings initiatives in each case. Is "a significant role" the language of MKO Partners? Was it quantified in any way?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We asked MKO Partners to look at the projects, validate them and ensure what was reported to us was what was happening. The company would have been asked to comment to the extent that the agreement would have helped to enable projects to be progressed.
What were the three samples that the company looked at?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Fingal County Council, medical laboratories and the redeployment of teachers, which was significant because the redeployment of teachers in terms of numbers was very big and it was the first time it had ever happened. It had never happened in post-primary schools before in the history of the State. A total of 200 post-primary teachers were redeployed and before that they would have been replaced and would have stayed in the schools they were in. About 800 primary teachers were redeployed so there was significant redeployment in that area. That is in addition to the extra hours under the agreement. Specific redeployment worked.
There was a third finding that the indicative savings reported by management in the cases of the three projects were found to be reasonable estimates of the savings that will arise if successfully implemented.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
MKO was not reporting on savings achieved then.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It was the first year of the agreement and that was the first report. These agreements have been concluded between management in those sectors and the unions. Some of them have started and some of them were in the process of being implemented. The company had to verify these were reasonable estimates of what they would achieve. We understand on the laboratories that the saving will be higher than the estimate at the time. It was an estimate of €5 million and the figure looks like it will go closer to €7 million. They were asked to look at the validity of the estimates. Most of them either had started or were in the process of being implemented, although none had been completed.
When we get to the next report and look at the section for independent verification of savings, will we get something much more detailed than just those three points? Will we get a breakdown?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
This year we will take another three or four projects. As the Deputy can appreciate, it would be very difficult to cover every project, as some are big and some are small. We are trying to take some significant projects in each sector. Everybody is aware that these are happening so nobody knows when people will come knocking on the door. To some extent it ensures that people know that whatever is reported to us could be subject to audit.
I would love to know about the third point. What would happen if the reasonable estimates of savings that will arise actually come about?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will making that determination in the report.
So we will get that and we can verify the figures.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That will be in our report when we do the review for the Minister and the Government.
It would be good to see that. I also want to touch on a couple of individual cases to see how the agreement works. It was reported during the week that in 2010, €17 million was spent on Garda overtime for attending court cases that were not heard. What is being done on this issue and how does the Croke Park agreement improve it and generate a saving?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The big proposal currently for the Garda relates to new rosters, which are scheduled to be implemented at the end of April. It is the first change in rosters for 40 years and the intent is to ensure flexibility in the number of gardaí required on duty when they are needed most. That will give much more flexibility to local superintendents or local Garda management in deploying gardaí. It is a very significant change in the Garda roster. Within the Department of Justice and Equality there is also consideration of the arrangements between prisons, gardaí and the courts with a view to minimising cost for all parties associated with court hearings.
Will we see a reduction in that figure and can we expect the agreement to help decrease the €17 million?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
There are very significant targets in the budget this year, with overtime being reduced by 10%, with the same reduction to apply in subsequent years, right across the public sector. Budgets under those headings have been reduced as well.
In talking about pay-related savings, is that regarded as a reduction in pay?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. When we report pay bill savings, it includes anything paid to people and contained in the payslip.
If the ability to earn over time is decreased, is it recorded as a pay saving, although there may not be a reduction in the actual pay?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
People, for example, may not be able to accrue more overtime to get more pay.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
If, for example, the expenditure on pay in any sector is down-----
It is recorded as a pay saving.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
-----it is a pay saving.
It may have been achieved through less overtime.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. Last year, for example, overtime was down by 5.2% across the public sector. We saw that in the figures from the Department. I mentioned earlier the revised arrangements for radiographers and laboratory staff, and there is a big reduction in the amount of money paid by way of on-call and call-out payments. That would also come into the pay savings. This takes in anything in the pay sphere.
What about a reduction in allowed uncertified sick leave? Is that classified as a reduction in pay-related savings?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That is probably unlikely to generate a saving in that it relates more to productivity. A reduction in sick leave would not necessarily generate a pay saving. People are probably being paid anyway when on sick leave. The only case where there would be a saving is if the person who is sick must be replaced.
That would not come into the €500 million figure we mentioned earlier.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The main benefit of reduced sick leave would be better productivity and more people at work at a time when numbers are reducing. I do not believe there will be a big saving in money terms but there will be productivity gains.
We heard last year about privilege days in the Civil Service relating to the king's birthday and empire day, which were then rolled into annual leave. Is that still the case?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Standardised annual leave has now been implemented across the public service.
Does it include those two privilege days?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
There is standardised leave across the public sector and there are no separate privilege days.
Yes, but were those privilege days turned into annual leave days and added to existing leave provisions?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I would have to check that. I understand they were eliminated and leave was then standardised. I know the Deputy is asking if there was any compensation in the leave amount.
I just wanted to know if it was clever accounting.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We can check that and revert to the committee.
I welcome the witnesses and apologise for missing some of the meeting as I was attending another committee meeting and speaking in the Dáil Chamber.
That is productivity.
It is the Croke Park agreement at work.
Exactly. The Deputy has thrown me.
I have no doubt it will form part of the next review.
I will check the index of the next progress report to see if I feature. I want to touch on a few themes which have already been referenced and covered in the briefing document sent to us. Deputy Murphy mentioned reported non-pay savings and I refer to the very comprehensive statement which has been made available to us. It indicates that the value of the reported non-pay savings detailed in the report, which are not exhaustive, was some €308 million. The number of cases where independent verification was put in place for non-pay savings yields three examples picked out for verification. I wish to understand how sure we are that the €308 million figure is being delivered. It is a very administratively easy matter to understand in tracking the degree to which pay costs have fallen, and the reasons have been detailed. Pay savings are approximately €289 million so the larger figure is €308 million. Independent verification came from three examples across hundreds of individual actions. How can we be sure the figure is correct and that it is not less or more?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We can establish the pay bill costs from the Department as we know what is being paid. The priority in the agreement is to facilitate the reduction in the pay bill; it is at the centre and it is the idea on which the agreement was predicated. It was put in place to allow the Government to reduce the numbers and maintain services in a climate of industrial peace.
We know the allocation made in the budgets for non-pay elements is being reduced. We know that people are having to reduce non-pay expenditure. The answer to the Deputy's question is that we have to assume that what people are telling us is correct. Some areas have been the subject of a verification process. There is an awareness that such a process could take place anywhere. I accept that we rely on the figures that we are given by the various Departments.
Is there a consistent-----
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Each agency channels its reports to us through its parent Department.
I appreciate that the implementation body has to accept the figures it is given. That is a reasonable stance to take in light of the resources at the body's disposal and the job it has been asked to do. How can we be satisfied that the figures being presented to the body by the Departments are what the Departments say they are? How can we be satisfied that a consistent verification process is in place across all the different Departments? If the Department of Health says it is saving €1 million and the Department of Defence says it is also saving €1 million - I use those two Departments as examples - how do we know that those figures are being verified in the same way?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Some of the figures - not all of them - are picked up through the external verification process.
That has been done on just three occasions.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. It will be done on a number of additional projects this year.
How many projects will have been covered at that stage?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We are planning to cover four projects in that way this year.
Okay.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That is probably as much as we can do because otherwise, it would become almost-----
Sure.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The other important thing is that most Departments receive monthly returns from their agencies.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The Department of Health, for example, would know what the HSE is spending, what its budget was and what its expenditure should be. Obviously, comparisons will be made between this year and last year. It would be impossible for us to go out and check everything that is reported. We have to rely on the integrity of the reports we are getting, all of which are coming from Secretaries General. They are not coming from small groups or agencies. They are all channelled to us. We insist that they come through the parent Department.
I do not doubt for a moment the integrity of the people who produce any of these figures.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Sure.
I understand exactly why Mr. Fitzpatrick is saying what he is saying, given the resources at his disposal.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
However, it seems to me that there is a weakness in the approach we are taking. The job of an entire Department - the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform - is to drive the reform of our public services through better budgeting, etc. I feel that this large figure, which is an important part of what we are saying to the public to maintain its support for this arrangement, should be more robust. We should be able to say in a clearer way that we can actually bed down where these figures are coming from and have them verified through a mechanism within our public services, if not through an independent organisation. We should be able to say we are happy with the figure we are citing. I do not accept the idea that we know we are saving money because less money is being allocated.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Sure.
Less money will be allocated anyway.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will take the Deputy's point away with us. It is a good point. We will look at how we can enhance the robustness of the verification of these figures. The Deputy's point has been well made. We will be happy to take it away and look at it.
I am making this point as somebody who supports this framework.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Absolutely. I take the Deputy's point.
The lack of industrial action and the lack of strife in our society are among the prizes that are at stake.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It is in everybody's interests.
It is important for our country and our economy.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Many people in this country are paying for this arrangement through their taxes. I am defending it because I believe it is the best arrangement we can have at the moment. I contend that a more robust arrangement should be in place across the entire system to make sure we are more solid on the figures for the non-pay element of it. I appreciate that Mr. Fitzpatrick has acknowledged that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will take that away.
Is there a role for the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the verification process?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I am sure that office will get involved in time, if the Comptroller and Auditor General considers that such involvement is necessary. I totally accept Deputy Donohoe's point about the importance of being able to stand over anything we produce. We have no reason not to stand over it, by the way. That is not the point that is being made. I take the point that is being made, which is in everybody's interests. We will take away the point the Deputy has raised.
I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will look at how we might better improve our arrangements. It is something that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General might consider.
I suggest that should be done in real time. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General often gets involved at a later stage when all it can do is look back at what has already happened. Maybe there is a role for that office.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The more people are aware that things are going to be checked, the more likely it is that the figures will be reliable.
Exactly. When I read the comprehensive summary of progress report for the period between April and September 2011, it struck me that some of the things that are being acknowledged in the report as happening as a consequence of the Croke Park agreement would and should be happening anyway. I can give three examples of this. One of the great benefits of being a member of the Committee of Public Accounts is that officials from across the entire body of government come to this forum each week. We hear what they all have to say. They all take credit for what they are doing.
I will give three examples of what I have seen at this committee recently when other bodies were in attendance. Page 6 of the progress report mentions that "work continues in respect of further civilianisation in An Garda Síochána". The point is made that "civilianisation will focus on a number of key areas", including the Garda National Immigration Bureau, which we have discussed, and the central vetting unit in Thurles. The progress report states that "the issue of augmentation of staffing numbers at the Vetting Unit was identified as a priority with a figure of 300 extra civilian staff being proposed". I will come back to that.
The second example I would like to give relates to the defence sector. Officials in that sector attended a recent meeting of this committee. The progress report refers to the "delivery of additional services with the deployment of personnel to UNIFIL (Lebanon) and takeover of Command by the Defence Forces of the EU training mission in Somalia". I would argue that this is what the Army should be doing anyway. When the officials come in to us, they say this is what they want to be doing.
The third example I wish to give relates to the "establishment by the Minister for Health of a new Special Delivery Unit in June 2011 and the appointment of a Special Adviser". Regardless of whether people see those developments as good or bad - we can leave that aside for another day - they constitute a political intervention on the part of the Government after it had decided to take a certain approach.
I can give a fourth example. Everybody has been speaking recently about the centralisation of the processing of medical cards. The progress report claims there is "a 15 day turnaround time for complete applications". At times, people would have been relieved if the turnaround time had been 15 weeks.
We know where to put the consultants this year.
I am making these points as someone who really supports this framework. I would argue there should be an expectation that many of the points covered in the progress report relate to things that should be done anyway. In many cases, those involved want to do them anyway. The four examples I have given, including the deployment of troops to Somalia and the establishment of the centralised unit for dealing with medical card applications, relate to policy decisions that were made by the Government and supported by many of the people who appear before this committee. They would be happening anyway. I do not intend to be critical when I say I genuinely struggle to see the link between such actions and the maintenance of the Croke Park agreement. In all of those cases, those who appear before this committee are saying they wanted those policy decisions to be taken in any case and are glad they are being done now.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The Deputy makes an important point. As I said in my introductory remarks, the primary responsibility for implementing the agreement lies with management in the various Departments, agencies and sectors. If managers do something well, they can come in here as Accounting Officers and take credit for it. One of the problems we had at the beginning was there was a disconnect in the public mind between the Croke Park agreement and Government policy, the budget and the four-year recovery plan at the time. The agreement was almost seen as something that was out there in isolation. We have worked hard is to get the understanding across - this has been very useful and I know the committee has that understanding - that the agreement is an enabler for Government decisions or management proposals to be progressed-----
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
-----with full staff co-operation and no disruption. I chaired the Defence Forces agreement and one big issue they have had to cope with is a significant reduction in numbers. The Defence Forces have had to continue to man their overseas operations with fewer people. For example, at the moment they are finalising the transfer of soldiers and redeploying people from the barracks that are being closed. They are also engaging in major restructuring by collapsing three brigades into two.
Yes, they are being merged.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That is all being done within the framework of the agreement. I can say that with certainty because I chair the Defence Forces group and the issue is on the agenda of every meeting. That is probably what managers are getting at. They are securing co-operation and flexibility to do the things they are having to do with smaller numbers. I am also familiar with the Garda one in the sense that civilianisation is a big issue in the Garda Síochána. With Garda numbers reducing, more and more civilians are being employed. Some of this is happening because the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Teagasc have offices closing in a number of locations and some of the surplus staff are ending up in Garda stations which are located in many towns around the country. What civilianisation does in the Garda is enable more gardaí to be freed up for front-line duty. At Dublin Airport, civilians are being used to do passport checking on a pilot basis. This pilot project is being progressed under the agreement and is part of the Garda change programme under the agreement.
On the special delivery unit, as I understand it the reason for this is that a considerable amount of organisational change and redesign was needed and there was work to be done. I take the point entirely that at times the two get very close. That is almost inevitable. I know the Deputy is not being critical. However, if we are asking the agreement, on the one hand, to support Government initiatives and policy or management proposals, it is inevitable that the two will get very close. By the way, on the issue of medical card processing, although figures have emerged since, the figures cited are those that were reported to us at the time.
That brings us back to my concern about independent verification. A claim was made about medical card processing and it may be the case that the reference at the time was to a target. Nonetheless, one could not hold up the processing of medical card applications as an example of a well implemented initiative.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Clearly there have been problems with the medical card processing - nobody would suggest otherwise. On the other hand, from the perspective of the Croke Park agreement, what was involved was moving a significant number of staff to Finglas from around the city and as far out as Loughlinstown. Significant redeployment was necessary to bring staff in and set up a unit. The numbers in the unit were a couple of hundred less than they were under the old system. I know there have been difficulties which may be partly to do with Deputy Harris's point about the increase in the number of medical card applications, which have risen by 500,000. What the Croke Park agreement enabled was a management proposal to set up a central shared services centre in Finglas to process medical cards with an online facility. That was what enabled the redeployment of people to the centre to do this work. If there are problems with implementation, which I know there are, hopefully they will be resolved. I accept that.
I will leave the matter at that. The core point I wished to make was related to the verification of non-pay savings.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I will certainly examine that.
There is a view that the average decrease in salaries in the public service is lower than the average decrease in wages in the private sector which was caused by the large increase in unemployment. People also note that unemployment in the private sector has been mainly involuntary whereas it has been of a voluntary nature in the public service. The importance of the Croke Park agreement is that it delivers a reform agenda in an environment of stability while also delivering a reduction in payroll costs.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Absolutely.
We need more crystallisation of the added value the agreement is bringing to the table. The best way to do this is to identify how we verify claims being made about what is happening outside of payroll costs. That would make a big difference, not only in terms of maintaining the agreement but also in maintaining public support for it.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will be happy to take that and see how we can make progress on it. I have no doubt the committee will raise the matter when it meets Accounting Officers.
We will raise it with them.
I will be brief because I am watching the monitor and note that a division will be taken in the House shortly. I welcome the delegation which I have met previously. Sometimes I do not envy Mr. Fitzpatrick his task in overseeing this issue. He stated initially that he could not take the credit for the 10% cut in pay for new entrants to the public service. I put it to him that he should not take the blame for the cut either because it is significant for some of those entering some of the professions and positions in the public sector. What is Mr. Fitzpatrick's definition of an increment? Does it form part of core pay, as protected by the Croke Park agreement?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I understand an increment would be regarded as core pay. My job is as the independent chair of the implementation body. I am a creation of the Croke Park agreement, the terms of which are a matter between the employer and staff side.
I would not dream of asking Mr. Fitzpatrick to venture an opinion that strays into policy. However, he is the overseer of the Croke Park agreement, which is a collective agreement.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick is its invigilator as well as enforcer, if I may use that term. We have had a discussion on the level of pay-out in respect of increments and there is a general understanding that, for the most part, increments are made at lower grades. Mr. Fitzpatrick cited the case of clerical officers, which is the classic example of a lower grade. I anticipate, however, that he would have a view on the status of increments. Is he saying it is his understanding that increments fall within the category of core pay, as protected in the agreement?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The unions would certainly contend that. As I stated, the agreement was negotiated between the employers and unions and the implementation body is a creation of the agreement, if one likes. Increments are paid to people and are part of pay at the moment. While I take the point that there may be other beneficiaries, many of the people on the lower end have long scales and progress up through quite lengthy scales.
The clerical officer grade, to which Mr. Fitzpatrick alluded, has 13 or perhaps more points on the scale and starts from a low base. I raise the issue because this has been a matter of contention. I take it that the implementation body - I am not asking the witness to be partisan - would have a view of what constitutes core pay and what does not because ultimately, there could be a scenario where if in the event of a dispute on the matter, whether Mr. Fitzpatrick wishes, he would be in the centre of it.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I am the independent Chair and I will only be effective as an independent Chair for as long as I stay independent. That is why I am somewhat reluctant to, as the Deputy will appreciate-----
I understand that but I am sure Mr. Fitzpatrick appreciates that the independent machinery of the State in dealing with any IR issue has to be independent but also has to make interpretations of agreements and have a view as to their content and import.
Staying on the issue of pay, there are 6,800 persons within the public and Civil Service who earn in excess of €100,000. Much of the debate keeps away from that issue. It is a very small number of people on wages that I believe cannot be justified in the circumstances. I do not want Mr. Fitzpatrick to comment on that, I am just expressing a view. However, will the witness tell the committee the scope of the Croke Park agreement to deal with the issue of pay reviews? I have in mind those in the upper echelons who might be reviewed. I note in respect of lower paid workers, it is stated that "in the event of sufficient savings being identified in the spring of 2011 review, priority will be given to public servants with pay rates of €35,000 or less in the review of pay which will be undertaken at that stage".
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Any decision to change or reduce pay rates is a matter for the employer, not the implementation body. On the second point, the pay review is conducted between the employer and the unions representing the employees after the Government gets our review. That is a separate process from the implementation body. We report on the progress, sustainable savings and the pay review then happens between the employers and the trade unions.
I am pressing Mr. Fitzpatrick, for the purposes of clarity for the committee and the broader public, in order that we understand there is a facility for pay review that is not precluded by the Croke Park agreement.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
As I understand it, that is provided for in the agreement. As I understand it that review did happen last year. Nothing resulted from it in terms of changes in pay but that mechanism is in place. The review may also be provided for in legislation.
It is.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
That review is a matter between the employer and the trade unions and it takes place after the Government gets our review.
I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for clarifying that issue. It is a useful contribution because very often when we address the issue, particularly of a very small number of highly paid people within the system, sometimes the Croke Park agreement is used by politicians to shy away from the issue.
In respect of the quote I read in respect of the lower paid public and civil servants Mr. Fitzpatrick will be aware that many in the service are on very low pay and that 10% of those are in receipt of family income supplement, paid by the State in acknowledgement of low wages. It is important to say that because often the view is created that the public and Civil Service is populated by over paid malingerers and we need to put that to rest. In respect of the review of those on lower pay, €35,000 or less, why has there been no outcome?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I am not trying to be unhelpful but that is a matter for the employer. We present our report on progress, including the sustainable pay bill savings, and it is entirely a matter for Government and the trade unions at that stage to have the pay review. I am party to that, I do not sit on it nor should I. To the best of my knowledge it happened. It has to happen under the legislation but that is a matter between the employer and the trade unions and not one in which I can become involved.
I understand that Mr. Fitzpatrick is not evading the answer.
When the vote is called at 12.50 p.m. or thereabouts we tend to conclude the meetings. Deputy Kieran O'Donnell wants to make a point before we finish. If we can accommodate him we will be able to end the meeting at the vote.
May I make a final point? I will crunch this item down and will not be long-winded.
The Deputy is never long winded.
The Deputy never is.
In terms of the payroll savings, we have had various witnesses appear before the committee and have been given different figures. For instance, from the HSE there was a headline figure for savings. However, when one examines that figure and asks about the lump sum payments and so on, the figure was much more modest. I would appreciate a global comment in respect of those payroll savings and the real figure.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Chairman, may I give two figures? By 2015 the pay bill will have been reduced by €3.5 billion from 2008. That includes the pay cut, the pension levy, the reduction of 37,000 in staff numbers and other associated pay.
My question is on the same issue. Is that a gross figure?
Or a net figure? That is the point.
Will Mr. Fitzpatrick give a gross figure, followed by a net figure, including the extra pensions that people will be paid? The HSE has said to the committee that it expects the savings to be about a third of the actual gross reduction in wages. If wages are being reduced by €1 million, there is a saving of about €300,000 net.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The simplest way I can explain it is that the pay bill for that period will have gone down by €3.5 billion gross.
Gross.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The pension bill for the period will have gone up by €1.1 billion.
That is a net saving of €2.4 billion.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
I must check that. The pay bill will have been reduced by €3.5 billion between the end of 2008 and 2015 and the cost of pensions will have gone up from €2.1 billion to €3.1 billion.
€1 billion extra, that is €2.5 billion
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes. The point I made earlier was that they were pension costs that were going to arise anyhow with or without the agreement. If the agreement was not in place and people were not being replaced there would still be those pension costs but also the replacement costs.
When is the next review due and when will it be published?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
In April-May and to Government in June.
Will Mr. Fitzpatrick provide a sectoral breakdown because the HSE is telling us that the actual net saving is a third of the gross wage? The witnesses' overall figure is different. It may be that the demographic factors are such that there may be some sectoral interests where there is a very high concentration of pension costs relative to the staff in place. Can we have some indication of that?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will look at that and see if we can get the information for the Deputy.
A lot of the discussion has been on processes. In many bodies, the issue becomes about the process rather than the issue. The Croke Park agreement is about change and efficiencies, but one of its key elements is savings.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes.
Getting back to the point made by Deputy Donohoe, the system must have integrity. The implementation body is bringing in outside consultants, MK Partners, to look at three bodies. The process for each body should be uniform and each sector should have a form to complete that will display in a common manner how savings are being made. This will preserve the integrity of the system. I support the Government and I want the Croke Park agreement to work. However, for the wider public to perceive that to happen, there must be a system in place that works and provides transparent information. To return to the point of sick leave, it looks as if the legislative framework exists to deal with that.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
It does.
The public perception is that it does not exist. The Croke Park agreement affords an opportunity to take an old brand - the public sector - and shine it up and show the rooms in it that people do not see but that are there. I hope that the implementation body's next review will look at the old components of the sector. A wise former Deputy once said to me that at times, the Legislature should do nothing more than examine the existing legislation to see how it can be used rather than bring in new legislation. Perhaps that is what the implementation body's review should do in this regard. It should also provide a breakdown of the changes and efficiencies per sector.
In table 1 of the summary of the progress, which deals with the reduction in staff numbers, the figure for local government is 14% and the average reduction is approximately 7%. However, in some areas, such as education, it is much lower at 5%. The reduction in the Defence Forces is 10%. Can we have some idea of how the different areas function?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
The important point is that the figures we use for the pay bill are from the Department of Finance. We use no other figures for public expenditure. These are the figures used by the Government and the figures sent to the troika and so on and there is consistency on those figures. I accept the point made by Deputy Donohoe on the need to look at the non-pay figures. I assure the Deputy there is consistency on the other figures, because they come from the Department.
If the figures given by Mr. Fitzpatrick are global figures, some sectors may be far more efficient than others.
I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his comprehensive submission, but I did not get the chance to make any comment on it yet. I have views on the Croke Park agreement and Mr. Fitzpatrick is the sheriff of the implementation of the deal. I suggest that not all front line services are as positive with regard to change as he has described. A significant number of services, particularly in the health area, are badly affected and the change is being very badly managed. This needs to be said. Yesterday, we had a contribution from the Centre for Independent Living which made the point that some of their critical staff are not protected by the Croke Park agreement and that they have been badly affected by it and the changes brought about through it. I have a letter here relating to the national ambulance service with regard to allowing paramedics to transfer easily to another part of the country, something that appears to be almost impossible. The letter describes the difficulty for one applicant.
There are issues of which we are aware and which are a concern for us. I am greatly concerned and I intend to take time at our next meeting to put the questions I have. At times, the story presented to us by Accounting Officers here differs considerably from what we know or from what Mr. Fitzpatrick has said. That has happened with regard to the HSE, the Garda Commissioner and education. We asked could the savings required be achieved and whether they would be achieved, and the response was they did not think so. All of this needs to be squared. The appearance of the implementation body before the committee is helpful in that regard as it gets the message out and allows us a greater understanding of what the body is doing. However, verification on all fronts is hugely important. I have my concerns on that. I appreciate the attendance of Mr. Fitzpatrick and his colleagues this morning. We can go into the issues in more detail at our next meeting.
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
We will follow up on all of the points made, including those just made by the Chairman.
I may call on the implementation body to appear on this issue alone so that we can understand it. Is that okay?
Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick
Yes, absolutely.
I am sorry we had to rush to finish today.
The committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 March 2012.