Vol. 530 No. 6
39 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the threat by the 13,000 strong Civil and Public Service Union to withdraw from the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; the steps being taken to address the issues raised by the CPSU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4658/01]
I am aware that the CPSU is balloting its members on the adjustment to the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness agreed between the employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 4 December 2000. The PPF is the latest in a series of national pro grammes negotiated, ratified and accepted by the Government, employers and private and public sector employees and groups representing a wide range of interests within the community. It comprises an integrated package of agreed objectives on income, economic and social policy developments. The partnership process which underlies these programmes has been the single most influential factor in bringing about our present economic well being.
I understand the CPSU concern is about pay. In addition to the adequate pay terms of the PPF, a fundamental part of the programme as far as the public service is concerned is the provision for a benchmarking exercise which will carry out a comparative examination of pay and jobs in the public and private sectors. Effectively this will deliver a pay review for the public service. Practically all the major public service groups, including grades represented by the CPSU, are being directly considered in this exercise.
I am convinced that the PPF and the benchmarking exercise represent the best means whereby the CPSU can address its concerns about pay. Any alternative pay mechanism for the CPSU would clearly not be in the public interest given the inevitable implications which it would have for public service pay policy, the entire national partnership process and associated budgetary policy. I urge the CPSU and its members to remain within the framework of the PPF and to use the benchmarking exercise constructively to deal with their pay aspirations within the partnership process.
I take this opportunity to wish my Fine Gael colleague, Deputy Jim Mitchell, well in his tenure as spokesperson on finance.
Does the Minister agree it would be disastrous – that is not overstating the point – if the CPSU, as the representative of the bulk of civil servants, withdrew from the framework of the PPF? Does he also agree the pay offered at recruitment grades, for example clerical officers in the Civil Service, is wholly inadequate and that that is at the base of the current dispute? Does he agree the reaction of the CPSU in that context to the Buckley report was understandable and will he outline what he intends to do about it?
I have already agreed to an improvement in the entry points of clerical and other recruitment scales by the removal of age points. In its terms of reference the benchmarking body is specifically asked to have regard to the need to recruit and retain staff. The Buckley report, to which the Deputy referred, is as good an example as one can get, and is very much akin to the benchmarking process. That was pointed out by many members of ICTU when the Buckley report was published. I appeal to the CPSU to remain within the PPF. In any event, there is no alternative to the benchmarking exercise for any public service group wishing to pursue its claim in any other way.
An amendment was agreed in the revised PPF last December which provided that 25% of any increases arising from the report of the benchmarking body would be backdated to 1 December 2001. Therefore, in 2002 when the benchmarking body will report, it was agreed in the revised PPF that 25% of any increase applying to a group would be effectively backdated to 1 December and that details of the balance of whatever increases were granted would be worked out.
I remind the Minister that there is a time limit of one minute for supplementary questions and replies to them.
Would the Minister agree it is a pity the impression appears to have been created that benchmarking is a matter for higher paid civil servants and professionals within the civil service, although that is not the case? The SMI process and the delivery of a better service which I hope goes with that, applies to all grades within the civil service. Would the Minister agree that any elaboration of a gain sharing system within the civil service has to apply to all grades, including entry grades?
I agree with the Deputy's comment that the benchmarking process is not just for the higher groups, it applies throughout the public service. It is hard to blame some people in the CPSU, however, when that point has not been got across sufficiently to learned people in other professions who do not seem to have taken on board what the benchmarking body is supposed to be about. That is despite the good selling that has taken place on the benchmarking body by the Congress of Trade Unions and its constituent unions. There may be a belief abroad that it does not apply to lower grades, but it does. As some-one else put it, it is the only game in town regarding public service pay. I would urge the CPSU to stay within the partnership process and proceed to the benchmarking body.
