Vol. 476 No. 6
6 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Finance his views on the ruling of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice that civil servants on job-sharing schemes should receive incremental credit based on their calendar years of service, rather than hours worked; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6641/97]
It would be inappropriate for me to express my views on what is essentially a legal matter of interpretation, particularly as the matter is still before the European Court of Justice. I will, however, take the opportunity to clarify a number of apparent misunderstandings which are reflected in the Deputy's question: first, the Advocate General has delivered an opinion rather than a ruling and, second, the case relates to civil servants moving from job-sharing to whole-time working rather than to civil servants who are actually job-sharing.
The opinion of Advocate General La Pergola, which was delivered last month in Luxembourg, is under consideration in consultation with the Attorney General's office, pending the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the matter.
The whole point of the opinion — it is an opinion rather than a ruling; the court makes the ruling — is that the same credit should be given for calendar years of job-sharing as are given for full time calendar years. Does that seem unfair, incongruous and unnecessarily expensive? Is the Minister aware that in the great majority of cases the opinion of the Advocate General tends to be accepted by the court?
On the second part of the Deputy's question, it is normal practice to work on the basis that an opinion will be upheld by judgement of the court. The Deputy is more learned in these matters than I am, but that is my understanding. Within the Civil Service it is standard practice to reckon only actual paid service so that a person working part time for the full year as against a person working full time for the whole year would be ipso facto entitled to 50 per cent of pension. It is based not on the calendar year but on the time given on the job. I do not wish to comment further until a formal judgment is made, and we will have to consider the consequences at that stage.
That is a little like the case where those who came to work in the vineyard in the ninth hour received the same wage as those who had arrived before the heat of the day. While in one capacity I must accept the validity of that ruling, it would be fairer if the European Court of Justice did not follow that precedent in this case.
The Deputy is referring to a Biblical reference made by Jesus Christ with respect to the rate for the day. This involves pension payments and other matters, and the same Jesus Christ promised heaven in that regard.
I agree with Deputy O'Malley on this issue.
Do not let us get in the way of this partnership.
The decision of the Advocate General is extraordinary. If the ruling is adhered to by the court what will be the estimated cost to the Exchequer? I would not like the Minister for Finance to be forced to abolish the job-sharing scheme because of the cost involved. Perhaps the trade union that brought the case to the European Court will bear that in mind. That would be one alternative to cut down on the cost, but I do not think that will be done, nor would I advocate it.
The ruling would have to be definitive on whether the question of backdating is to be applied. It is not possible to give a costing until we have a clear indication in that respect.
Will the Minister give the annual cost?
That information is not available to me, but the figure of £10 million quoted in the media, which came from the CPSU, the union involved, is not in accord with our figure.
