Vol. 432 No. 3
15 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Finance the evolution of public service pay and pension expenditure over the past five years in absolute and percentage terms per annum; and if he will relate spending to the appropriate elements of the Programme for National Recovery and Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
The information sought by the Deputy is set out in a tabular statement which I intend to circulate in the Official Report.
|
Year |
Exchequer Pay and Pensions Bill(£ million) |
% Increase over previous year |
Additional cost over previous year |
General Rounds(£ million) |
Special Increases*(£ million) |
Other Reasons(£ million) |
|
1988 |
2845 |
|||||
|
1989 |
2914 |
2.4 |
69 |
70 |
40 |
-41 |
|
1990 |
3160 |
8.4 |
246 |
70 |
99 |
77 |
|
1991 |
3392 |
7.3 |
232 |
135† |
110 |
-13 |
|
1992 |
3755 |
10.7 |
363 |
75† |
132 |
156 |
|
1993 |
4038 |
7.5 |
283 |
140† |
70 |
73 |
*Relates exclusively to deferred increases under the Programme for National Recovery.
†PESP general rounds.
As I do not have the information in the tabular statement, I wish to refer to another element of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, namely, the recent understanding referred to earlier and the commitment to allow for local bargaining. Would the Minister agree that the commitment under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress would allow for potential additional public expenditure of up to £120 million under that heading? Can the Minister say in what way he would contemplate such expenditure being neutral, which apparently is the language of the understanding? This House would clearly need to approve an Estimate for that sum but it is not clear how it would amount to the neutrality required.
Naturally I would not accept any figure — one can never make provision for a certain figure for pay before one begins the negotiations. If there is any increase it will have to be on an Exchequer neutral position. When the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was negotiated three years ago a local bargaining clause was included on the basis that it would be payroll neutral in the private and public sectors. It would be very useful for some grades in the public service if there was some flexibility in regard to technology and if demarcation lines were removed. Whether it would be possible to reach agreement on this is another matter. It should be possible in some of the pivotal grades. There could be substantial savings. Many of the grades are old grades and there is no longer any need for them. Some grades could be amalgamated and the staff could be utilised in a much better way.
As the tabular statement is to be circulated in the Official Report it is not in order for Deputies to pursue the matter orally. I propose to move onto the next question.
I have one statistical question to ask the Minister.
It is not in order now, Deputy.
It is absolutely in order.
A supplementary question on this question is not in order, and I ask the Deputy to obey my ruling.
On a point of order, on a daily basis the Minister of State at the Department of Finance in replying to statistical questions says that he will circulate a tabular statement. He is then asked to confirm whether the tabular statement includes certain figures. I want to ask the Minister a very specific question about figures.
The information will be circulated in the Official Report.
I believe it is perfectly in order for me to ask my question, and I think the Minister is willing to reply to it.
I am moving on to the next question.
I will be very brief.
I have given my ruling on the matter and I ask the Deputy to obey my ruling.
With respect, I think your ruling is wrong.
We will have to raise this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
That is your prerogative, Deputy Carey. I call Question No. 16 in the name of Deputy John Connor.
