Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Mar 1967

Vol. 227 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 51—Remuneration.

Mr. Haughey

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,125,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967, for Remuneration of Civil Servants.

The amount sought here by way of Supplementary Estimate is £2,125,000. It can be divided into two parts. First of all, I want to explain that this Supplementary Estimate covers only 31 Votes. There are eight other Votes which also need extra amounts of money to cover increases in remuneration, but we are including the additional amount required for remuneration in respect of them in the separate Supplementary Estimate for the particular Votes. For the 31 Votes, we are taking them all together in this one Supplementary Estimate for remuneration covering the whole 31. This sum of £2,125,000 can be divided into two different amounts, one of £1,160,000 for tenth round increases and the other, £965,000, covering increases other than tenth round pay increases. This is required because of delayed adjustments in respect of the eighth round for certain Post Office grades and certain officers of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say if there are any outstanding cases still to be completed in respect of the tenth round or if some of this £2 million plus and the other eight Votes he mentioned will deal with claims still outstanding? Can the Minister indicate the total sum in respect of remuneration arising out of the tenth round?

Mr. Haughey

First of all, this amount of £1,160,000 which is involved in the tenth round increases is the total sum required for everything that has been agreed. There is an outstanding case in regard to the executive officer grades which is still the subject of the conciliation and arbitration machinery. Nothing has yet been agreed about that and it is not included here. With regard to the £965,000 which arises by virtue of delayed adjustments in the eighth round, there are only two or three more such cases still to come. It would be difficult to give any kind of total figure such as is asked for by the Deputy.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is the executive officer case mentioned by the Minister in respect of status increases or the tenth round?

Mr. Haughey

The tenth round.

Mr. James Tully

The description of these increases as status increases is misleading. These increases were, in fact, arrears of pay increases which had not been given over two or three rounds and it is a pity that they should ever have been described as status increases. Could the Minister say if this applies to the people generally covered by the tenth round and whether the operative date will remain the same in all cases?

Mr. Haughey

They are within the Labour Court guideline, the £1,200 maximum, and cover increases from the 1st June.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is aware that the arbitration and conciliation machinery may give a recommendation of a date other than 1st June; they could give a date such as 1st January.

Mr. Haughey

I do not like dealing with hypothetical cases. I am talking about executive officer grades who at present have a claim before the machinery.

Mr. James Tully

A human being is a human being, whether he is of executive grade or just a roadsweeper.

Mr. Haughey

I would not say "just a roadsweeper".

Mr. James Tully

Everybody, no matter to what grade he belongs, seems to be able to get an increase under the arbitration and conciliation machinery, except a certain grade. People have even had a Labour Court recommendation changed to a period before 1st June, to a period two or three months before that.

Mr. Haughey

I do not get the Deputy's point. This sum which we ask in regard to the tenth round increases covers everybody in the Civil Service coming under the conciliation and arbitration machinery, with the exception of higher executive officers and executive officers who did not accept the Labour Court's guideline and who now have a claim before the machinery.

Vote put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that we are not proceeding with Vote No. 52.

Mr. Haughey

No.

Votes 4, 11 and 51 reported and agreed to.