Vol. 743 No. 1
42 Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will have any engagement with the troika during their October quarterly review; if so if he will give details of his involvement; the key items on his agenda for discussion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28654/11]
It is my intention to meet with the troika delegation during its fourth quarterly review along with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, and senior officials from bothDepartments.
I welcome the Minister's brief, general and non-specific introductory remarks. The Minister introduced the issue of the sale of State assets. We are talking about the sale of strategic State assets such as the ESB, EirGrid, Bord na Móna, Coillte and Bord Gáis. Will the Minister confirm that no figure for the sale of State assets was included in the original EU-IMF agreement? The agreement was merely to carry out a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of State companies. That review was concluded earlier this year and published in the McCarthy report.
The figure of €2 billion for State assets was included in the programme for Government when the Labour Party signed up to the Fine Gael NewERA programme. That figure does not feature in the quarterly review. The Minister, who is a shareholder in these State assets, is taking the initiative in introducing the figure of up to €2 billion for State assets.
I can confirm that the figure of €2 billion emerged from the negotiations between the two parties in the programme for Government. The IMF publicly called for State asset sales of €5 billion. That was the figure that confronted the Minister for Finance and myself when we opened discussions with the troika. The troika wanted to write a €5 billion figure into the last agreement, and we insisted on a general statement of ambitious targets.
Important as the quantum of money is, it is more important to decide how we will use the money. The Government is committed to deleveraging some money. This will be an important part of our interaction with the troika. Deleveraging will allow us to reinvest resources in the next round of job creation. We want to give a clear message to the troika and to all our international partners that we must grow our economy out of the hole in which the previous administration left it.
The Minister mentioned the comprehensive spending review. Will he be discussing that review when he meets the troika? He has said he will not publish the review before budget day, in early December. Will the Minister discuss it with officials from the EU, the IMF and anyone else who comes under that umbrella, notwithstanding the fact that he will not disclose the review figures to the House? While the spending review may not be fully completed at this stage, the Minister must have a general picture of where he is. I do not think the troika would be happy to go home without discussing the comprehensive spending review. What details will the Minister disclose to the troika that he will not disclose to the House?
The Deputy is right when he says the comprehensive review of expenditure is not completed. I am currently engaged in bilateral discussions and I do not want to pre-empt further questions which have yet to be reached.
I want to find a mechanism that would allow a greater debate in the House on this matter. I will be bringing proposals to Government to ensure there is engagement on the Estimates that is different from the traditional way, where we debate Estimates well into the year when a portion of the money is already spent.
43 Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he attempted to rescind the special severance gratuity payment and added years awarded to the former Secretary General (details supplied) to the Department of the Taoiseach as agreed by the Top Level Appointments Committee, in advance or upon their retirement as allowed for in sections 6 and 7 of the Superannuation and Pension Act 1963. [28652/11]
Prior to the appointment of the former Secretary General to the post of Secretary General to the Government in January 2000, the then Government decided that the terms applicable to Secretaries General appointed under the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, process would apply in his case. At the end of his term in December 2010, the then Government confirmed the application of those TLAC exit terms on his retirement but deferred his retirement until 6 July 2011 at the latest. It was decided by the Government in June 2011 that his retirement be further deferred to 31 July 2011. In these circumstances, payment of the former Secretary General's superannuation and severance benefits was deferred until he ceased to hold office and his benefits were then paid in accordance with the Government decisions made on his appointment and on 7 December 2010.
The Minister will be aware that Mr. Dermot McCarthy received a pay-off of €713,000 and that his package will cost the State in the region of €6 million. Whatever about the time of his appointment, his retirement occurred on the Minister's watch. Whenever I question the Minister on this matter, he constantly invokes the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC. What the Minister studiously ignores is his powers under legislation, specifically, the Superannuation and Pensions Act 1963, section 7 of which——
Does the Deputy have a question for the Minister?
——states that the Minister, if in his discretion so thinks proper, can grant to the civil servant a special severance gratuity not exceeding one half of the annual salary of the office of the civil servant. That severance gratuity payment can only be paid on the Minister's say so. I take it from the Minister's response to my question that he made no effort to rescind that payment to Mr. McCarthy.
Section 6 of the same legislation, which I am sure the Minister has before him, refers to additional years. Mr. McCarthy received his full pension at the age of 57 years and there was no actuarial reduction despite his not reaching the standard pension entitlement age.
Thank you, Deputy.
I am sure the Minister will concede that TLAC cannot overrule the law of the land. I again put it to the Minister that he had the levers and discretion to stop the special severance payment, to put a halt to the award of additional years and to end the disgrace of this outrageous payment to this top civil servant but despite all of his rhetoric around change and transparency he failed to do that.
The Deputy likes to grandstand. I am conscious that we are speaking here about an individual who has served this State well over a long period. Senior public servants have families. I am conscious we are speaking now about an identified individual. While the Deputy might say I should have known about the TLAC terms since 1987, I only learned of them when I became Minister. Many of the people around the House to whom I have spoken did not know that Secretaries General were uniquely appointed on this basis. While I am reviewing and seeking to change that, I will not pretend I can changed it retrospectively.
The previous Government exercised the 1963 Act, to which the Deputy referred, in December of last year. It made that discernment and decision. Could I have undone it or recommended that it be undone is a point we could possibly debate. However, to do so would probably have been a breach of contract. It certainly would have had legal repercussions for us. I am in the business of reform. I want to reform on a cross public service basis. I have introduced the new pensions Bill, which it is hoped we will be debating next week, which will ensure we have a single pensions scheme across the public service. I will not pretend I can break contracts already in place for people who have legitimate expectations now. Other anomalies may well arise. I am grappling with each of those as they arise to do what is best in the interests of the taxpayer.
I will try do away with the TLAC severance payment. Pension lump sums and pension entitlements will be reduced in accordance with the reduced pay levels which will be applicable from February.
It is not grandstanding to say the Minister did not grapple with this issue, instead allowing this outrageous payment to go ahead. He also claimed there are other anomalies. What about the Secretary General of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation who is supposed to retire soon with a large lump sum? The seven-year tenure of the Secretary General in the Department of Education and Skills is also soon to end. Can we expect more of the same from the Minister, hiding behind TLAC, the Top Level Appointments Committee, while not exercising the legislative function as set out in existing pensions legislation?
Deputy McDonald is not long enough in the House to know that I do not hide behind anything. That is not my form and I have never done so before. I answer questions upfront and never make pretence or grandstand on issues.
We need to change these arrangements in a way that is sustainable for the public purse. For example, I could spend moneys sending lawyers down to the Four Courts and pretend I can do things I cannot. There are two more potential retirees at the grade at which they would be entitled to the TLAC terms on this side of the end of February 2012 when the new pension regime comes into play. I am reviewing what can be done then because the TLAC terms provide options for me. I am going to review this on a case-by-case basis.
44 Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his priorities in respect of public sector reform; the progress that has been made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28868/11]
As outlined in the programme for Government, the Government is committed to the most ambitious programme of public service reform since the foundation of the State. This programme will take place in tandem with an equally significant programme of constitutional, political and institutional reform to ensure there is a fundamental change in democratic and public governance and a dramatic change in the cost efficiency and methods of delivery of public services. The cost of delivering public services must be reduced further, with fewer staff and tighter budgets, while it becomes better integrated and more customer-focused, as well as being leaner and more efficient.
Implementation of this reform programme is a priority for the Government and detailed implementation plans are being developed which encompass the commitments to public service reform in the programme for Government and priority areas from the existing transforming public services programme. The issues to be addressed in the reform programme will, of course, also be informed by the comprehensive review of expenditure across all Departments.
The implementation plans will be presented to the Cabinet sub-committee on public service reform in the coming weeks and will set out the priority actions and timelines for reform in a broad range of areas. There will be a focus on actions to improve performance by organisations and individuals, to ensure greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy and ensure flexibility in the deployment of people and resources. Specific priority areas will include e-Government, shared services, public procurement, business process improvement and financial management. Several actions are already under way in these areas.
My Department has been given a clear mandate to drive and enable public service reform. The focus now is on the key reforms required and how and in what sequence they will be implemented. Over the past two months, my officials have been meeting with all Departments and major State offices to discuss priorities and challenges in the reform programme.
A reform and delivery office is being established in my Department to facilitate, drive and support the reform programme. Last week, I announced the appointment of the programme director of this office. He and his office will work closely with organisations across the public service, enabling them to deliver reform at a local level, as well as leading on key cross-cutting reform initiatives.
I have known the Minister for a number of years and he is not a man for grandstanding. He gives honest and open answers and I wish him well in his public service reforms.
I thank the Deputy.
I am not here to attack public servants but I must express my frustration, concerns and, at this stage, rage at the bureaucracy of State that has emerged. It has become a massive runaway train on a track that we cannot seem to derail. I am glad the Minister has indicated he will be publishing his plans to reform the public sector.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Senior public servants seemed to have had the ear of the previous Government in this area. I hope this Government will not be hoodwinked by them this time. Will the Minister outline how the reforms will be put in place?
I thank the Deputy for his good wishes. It is a daunting task. We are trying to reform a system that has built like Topsy since the 1920s. One of the most daunting aspects of the task is that there is no integration within the public service. Our ambition is to create an integrated public service with common pension and salary schemes and to rationalise various working hours. Some agencies and individuals have different working hours from others. During the summer, we saw surprising holiday arrangements for county managers. All of this work needs to be done, but changing it arbitrarily would be difficult. We are working within the confines of the Croke Park agreement to make radical change while holding the system together.
That we have set up a Department is the most important measure. We have a Minister charged with reform and an office of reform in the political and public service spheres. In the coming years, I hope we will see significant change in the way the public service is structured and delivers its services.
I wish the Minister well. I was so enraged by the budget before last. One of my biggest rows with the late Brian Lenihan, with whom I was good friends, came from when he went back on his decision to apply the pension levy to senior public servants. I now know why he did it — they had his ear. No one else in the country got away with it. An outrageous decision, it undermined the entire process.
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has set up an implementation group to oversee the amalgamation of my county's local authorities. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, can stop his colleague from appointing two former senior civil servants to the board. They retired on good packages. They have no contracts anymore, so the Government has no obligation under the unions or so on. Stomp out this gravy train. They have had enough. Why should they be on the board? Some of them were anti-local authority, although I will not cast aspersions. Why should we go back to that pool? The gravy pot is being stirred. It must be broken at the bottom to let the gravy run out.
I am afraid the matter of the group overseeing the amalgamation is outside my area of——
It is not.
——responsibility, but I will pass on——
Please.
——the Deputy's profoundly felt views to the Minister, Deputy Hogan.
His exasperation.
I thank the Minister.
45 Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his priorities in terms of protecting front line services; the mechanisms he will put in place to ensure that key staff are retained in the provision of these services in view of the expected reduction in public service numbers in the months ahead; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28655/11]
Ireland is committed under the EU-IMF programme to reducing the overall public service wage bill. Delivering this reduction will require continued implementation of the moratorium on recruitment with exceptions being limited to essential posts only and the utilisation of redeployment as the primary mechanism to fill posts that have been approved.
In order to protect front line services, the Government is committed to making fundamental changes to the way the public service operates. To protect crucial services, exceptions to the moratorium may be granted on the following bases — statutory posts that must be filled for legal reasons; where failure to fill posts would result in a breach of EU-international obligations and impact upon exports and so on; safety related posts where a failure to fill them could leave the State open to potential legal liabilities; specialist-technical posts to ensure the continuation of essential operations, for example, legal officers, laboratory staff, certain marine staff and so on; and to ensure continuity of front line services. In the cases of the education and health sectors, a number of grades are exempt from the moratorium to ensure that vital services are maintained.
All Departments and agencies must deliver better value to the public to reduce the deficit and protect front line services. In recent years, enhanced numbers monitoring systems and multi-annual employment frameworks have been put in place. These arrangements will be strengthened to ensure that effect is given to Government decisions on public sector numbers and will aid public bodies in planning future staffing levels.
It is a part of the day-to-day function of the boards and management of all State bodies to assess, budget and plan for current and ongoing staffing requirements, including the identifying of key posts. However, it remains a matter for local agency and parent Department management to decide on operational priorities within the framework of Government policy and the resources available to us.
I thank the Minister for his general response, but I wish to raise this issue because specific staff will be leaving. I am concerned about the health sector. Doctors are exempt, but nurses who take early retirement are not an exempt grade under the moratorium. Does the Department have a mechanism in place to ensure that, if an inordinate number of nurses decide to take early retirement, clerical officers cannot be redeployed to be nurses the following Monday morning? It is the same with special needs assistants and resource teachers. I note the Minister will continue to employ teachers. They are exempt and that is fair enough. Those who provide home help are not exempt and they cannot be recruited because of the moratorium. Will the Minister be able to do something if an inordinate number of gardaí wish to retire?
Will the Minister and the Irish public be victims of a voluntary scheme with no management? No company would allow a situation whereby all staff could walk out the door if they felt like it. Regarding nurses and gardaí, surely, in addition to the key posts mentioned by the Minister there is a mechanism to prevent a major crisis in front line services if an inordinate number of them volunteer for redundancy.
Deputy Fleming has raised a number of important issues to which we must have regard. To put it in context, we are committed to downsizing the public service. There is no gainsaying this. The previous Government, supported by Deputy Fleming, signed up to a programme of reduction and we have put in place an enhanced production profile because, to be blunt, there is a €500 million gap in the public sector pay figures with which the previous Government left us — thank you very much — which must be found through policy changes.
We have set an ambitious target of public sector number reductions. There is no early retirement package except for a small one at Coillte which I have approved. It is not as if everybody can walk out the door. Naturally, anybody can retire or resign from any position but only people who are close to retirement will feel they might want to avail of the window of opportunity available to the end of February to retire on the post-cuts pension scheme. We will have to monitor it very carefully, which is why I require people to give three months notice of their intention to retire so managers can plan for gaps that can be identified in the system. Under the Croke Park agreement we can move people up to 40 km. If key gaps emerge we will need another strategy to deal with them. We are determined to address it.
I am pleased the Minister has the flexibility under the Croke Park agreement, on which his party refused to have a view until we implemented it. When I speak about "early retirement packages" I use the phrase in general layman's language. People understand there is a benefit for going early. It might not be the technical name of the package but people understand it is better to go sooner rather than later.
To return to my basic question on nurses, I ask the Minister to consider the situation whereby an inordinate number of applications are received by the Minister. He stated he will have early notification which will provide him with an opportunity to move staff up to 40 km. How many nurses have already moved under the Croke Park arrangements?
I would have to be asked a specific question on this as I do not have in my head the number of nurses who have moved under the Croke Park agreement. It is the framework and I have stated from the beginning the Government will live up to its side of it, the main features of this being no future wage cuts or compulsory redundancies, but on the other side is flexibility, including the ability to move up to 40 km to fill gaps that are created. We will have to have great flexibility to implement the significant downsizing of the public service in the coming years and the other implications of the comprehensive review of expenditure when they are rolled out in the budget.
46 Deputy Stephen Donnelly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in view of the current closure of a respite facility at St. Colman’s Hospital, Rathdrum, County Wicklow, due to reduced staffing levels resulting from the public service moratorium on recruitment when the hospital is unable to hire staff to cover staff on maternity leave, sick leave and those who have retired, his plans to revise the moratorium; his views that such blanket moratoriums are a crude, inefficient and anti-meritocratic way of enforcing savings; if he will acknowledge that one result of the moratorium is that offices in the public service in which women take maternity leave inevitably suffer an increased workload, and that this may disproportionately impact on offices or work areas which happen to be staffed disproportionately by women; his views on the implications that this has for gender equality; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the public service moratorium generally. [28894/11]
On the specific institution referred to by the Deputy I would say it is a matter for the board and management of the HSE to set staffing and services priorities in accordance with Government policy. It is part of the day-to-day function of the boards and management of all public bodies to assess, budget and plan for current and ongoing staffing requirements within existing resources. Any inquiries relating to the day-to-day operations of St. Colman's Hospital should be directed to that body or to my colleague, the Minister for Health. On the more general issues raised, the position is that Ireland is committed to reducing the overall size of the public service, as I indicated to Deputy Fleming.
I do not agree with the Deputy's assertion that the moratorium is unfair to any particular group or sector of workers. All public service bodies are equal opportunity employers and are committed to treating everyone in the same way regardless of race or colour, nationality or national or ethnic origin, religion or religious belief, sex or marital status, family status, sexual orientation, membership of the Traveller community, disability or age. The public service has a very good record in this regard.
Moreover, the reason for any vacancy is not a factor in decisions relating to the moratorium. It should be noted by the Deputy that a number of exceptions have been granted by my Department to cover maternity leave where the posts in question met the agreed exemption protocols in order to protect crucial services. Delivering this reduction will require continued implementation of the moratorium on recruitment with exceptions being limited only to those essential posts and the utilisation of redeployment not being available. I have indicated in a previous reply where flexibility exists in the moratorium. However, in general terms, we need to reduce the numbers to a manageable profile so that pay reduction targets can be met.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In order to protect front line services, the Government is committed to making fundamental changes to the way the public service operates. In order to protect crucial services, exceptions to the moratorium may be granted on the following basis: where statutory posts which have to be filled for legal reasons; where failure to fill posts would result in a breach of EU-international regulations and impact upon exports etc.; safety related posts — where failure to fill them could leave the State open to potential legal liabilities or for security reasons; specialist-technical posts to ensure continuity of operations, for example, in the case of legal officers, laboratory staff and maritime safety; and to ensure continuity of frontline services.
In the case of the health sector, a number of grades are exempted from the moratorium in order to ensure that these vital services are maintained. It is part of the day-to-day function of the boards and management of all public bodies to assess, budget and plan for current and ongoing staffing requirements within existing resources. All Departments and agencies have to deliver better value to the public in order to reduce the deficit and protect front line services.
Over the past years, enhanced systems for monitoring numbers and multi-annual employment frameworks have been put in place. These arrangements will be strengthened to ensure that effect is given to Government decisions on public service numbers and will aid public bodies in planning future staffing levels. However, it remains a matter for local agency and parent Department management to decide on operational priorities within the framework of Government policy and resources allocated.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed with some of points made in the reply. The moratorium on recruitment is by definition, non-strategic, depending as it does on when a staff member may be sick or is pregnant or approaching retirement age. It does not help in achieving value for money. It may be a method for reducing staff numbers but it is not a strategic way to reduce numbers.
The Minister has stated the moratorium does not discriminate against anyone but, by definition, if maternity leave is included in the moratorium, then this discriminates against women.
I wish to read out some of the responses I have received from female civil servants——
I do not wish the Deputy to read out quotes because this is Question Time.
These are very brief and I have a question afterwards. They read:
It is hard enough to go on maternity leave and feel guilty for your colleagues when you are being replaced. Imagine how hard it is when you are not being replaced. It is awful to have your boss put their head in their hands and go, "Great, well done".
The following was said by a boss to a female staff member who was pregnant, "You cannot plan your family around the troika". I maintain that by definition the moratorium discriminates against women.
I am very disappointed that the Minister states the closure of St. Colman's Hospital is a matter for the HSE. The reason it has closed is because staff members are on maternity leave and this has been confirmed by the HSE. Staff on maternity leave cannot be replaced because of the rules which the Minister oversees. The HSE has confirmed that the respite service and the day care centre have been closed.
Has Deputy Donnelly raised this matter with the Department of Health?
A question, please, Deputy.
I have discussed it with the Department. It is within the Minister's power. Will the Minister supply the cost-benefit analysis regarding maternity leave? Will he review the very crude approach which is the moratorium on recruitment? If so, will he indicate when he might come back to the House with some answers?
I am surprised the Deputy is so clear in his assertion that a hospital closed because staff were pregnant. I will go back to the HSE to ascertain the basis of the assertion. This is primarily a matter for the Minister for Health and I will ask him to revert to the Deputy directly in this regard.
The Deputy is correct with regard to the general principle. I agree there is a certain crudeness about a moratorium but if we have to downsize within a very tight timeframe there is no point in getting rid of people if they can be replaced. I hope to redefine the mechanisms to exclude some of the cruder consequences, including those referred to by the Deputy. However, I must do this in the straitjacket of the financial burden under which we live and bearing in mind my objectives to save money on pay. The Deputy is well placed to understand those pressures.
If I may read a direct quotation, "The Health Service Executive says the decision——
This is Question Time, Deputy.
I am replying directly to the Minister.
Quotations are not permitted in the House.
I have informed the Deputy already.
I will send the information to the Minister. The HSE is on the record as confirming that maternity leave and sick leave is one of the reasons the respite centre is being closed. With regard to Deputy Fleming's question, the end of February date is a significant problem for teachers. I hear this many times.
The Deputy is straying well beyond his question.
This is also a priority question. The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
Will the Minister review whether the date can be changed for teachers because many teachers will be leaving the service half way through the year?
I hope I am not encroaching on a question that is to come, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle may stop me if I am. I am aware of the difficulty the Deputy has identified. While it is not possible legally to give different dates to different categories of public service workers, we must have a strategy to deal with that issue when it arises.
