Vol. 867 No. 2
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if and when discussions on a new public sector pay agreement will commence; his aims for such negotiations; if they will cover matters other than pay and work conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5959/15]
When will discussions on a new public sector pay agreement commence? What are the Minister's aims for such negotiations and will they cover matters other than pay and work conditions?
The Haddington Road agreement 2013-2016, which is the second public service pay agreement since 2010, forms the cornerstone of pay policy in the public service until July 2016, when it is due to expire. The focus remains on maximising the provisions of that agreement in relation not only to pay but also to the long-term impact of reform and productivity measures, such as extra working hours and reduced leave entitlements. However, it is prudent now for the Government to start preparing for the period after the agreement in the public service, and, in particular, to ensure there is a phased and structured approach to the reversal of the financial emergency measures, which applied billions of euro of cuts to the public service pay and pensions bill. To that end, I have indicated my desire to enter into a discussion with the public sector unions and associations to develop and agree an approach to that issue.
At a minimum, my preference is to have the first quarter Exchequer returns for this year available to me to put in context the capacity we have for these talks. Any such discussions on pay or other matters will, of course, take place in the context of the State's fiscal position and the pace of financial recovery for this year and next. It is important that expectations on all sides in regard to any discussions on the review of pay rates and other reforms are realistic. Having worked over the last four years to restore the health of the public finances, the Government is determined that any outcome of discussions with unions is consistent with our overall fiscal position. The current financial stability, which was hard won, must not be jeopardised. Nor is the Government willing to discuss changes in terms and conditions of employment that would attract a substantial additional cost if a serious impact is made on front-line services.
I am acutely conscious that 2015 will be the seventh consecutive year in which there will have been no pay increases for public servants and, as we know, there have been two or three actual cuts in nominal wages, depending on one's pay grade, which is unprecedented. During that time, public servants have accepted permanent changes to their terms of employment, including sick and annual leave arrangements, and their working hours, which helped preclude further cuts to front-line public services as numbers fell across the public service and will boost the productivity and efficiency of the service over the long term.
I thank the Minister for setting out the general position. I accept everything he said. No one could have any argument with it, but I would like to tease it out in further detail. Does the Minister have a view on whether talks on public sector pay should be carried out in isolation, separate from pay in the private sector, or are these talks confined to 280,000 public servants? Does he see it happening in a wider context?
It would be in everyone's interests to know, when we come to the Estimates next October, what the expenditure plans are for 2016, which would incorporate issues in respect of public pay. That tells me the talks need to be concluded over the summer months, after the first quarter, such that we are not coming along with Estimates next October in the full knowledge that they are not the real Estimates and that the public sector pay issue has not been dealt with. Is that the Minister's timetable?
The Deputy posed a number of very pertinent questions. I propose that the discussions I will have with the public service will be focused on the public service alone. We have had general discussions about a broader social dialogue, which we must construct, but we are not going back to a national pay agreement. What we are talking about is working out a settlement with public sector unions, which is unique insofar as many private sector employees have not had pay cuts. The biggest impact on the private sector has been the 250,000 jobs that were lost, but many people have done okay and wage increases are still happening in the private sector both last year and this year. We need to map out a sustainable path for the public sector in a fair and equitable way, particularly looking after those on low pay. There are other issues, such as the initiative by the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, regarding the low pay commission, which will have an impact on both public and private sectors. Regarding the timescale, I hope to have whatever is concluded concluded so that we can have robust and real Estimates presented to the House by the end of the year.
I take that to also mean it will have to be conducted within the expenditure ceilings the Minister published for 2015, 2016 and 2017. He might tell us if he envisages a length for the agreement - 12, 24, 36 or 48 months. Has he a preference? I know he cannot get into the details of that.
The Minister spoke of reversing the financial emergency measures, saying they had cost billions, and then he talked about the cost to the public. I am worried that that might create an impression that he is intending to reverse the measures - that it is in some way part of these talks. He might clarify this. Does he mean he is handing public servants back the billions that were taken from them, or is he just saying that these measures are over and we are moving forward? There is some confusion out there. It might surprise him to hear that.
In these talks, will the Minister look at front-line services to the public in order to decide what to prioritise, whether it is health care or accident and emergency services? One should not just talk about public sector pay in isolation from the services provided by the public service.
The Deputy made three very important points. We have published expenditure ceilings for the next three years. We might have a broader discussion at committee on the fiscal space we will have for next year, which will be a real issue, rather than trying to do it here. That is part of ongoing negotiations with the Commission in terms of how that fiscal space is to be measured accurately, to give us the capacity, for example, to invest when the economy is recovering.
That will require a broader discussion between us. FEMPI is, by its nature, emergency legislation. I have to put an annual report before the House to state that the emergency continues. I have done that every June. Thank God, the day will come when there will no longer be an emergency, but the Deputy is correct that we cannot allow a big collapse or a big bang. There will have to be a negotiated winding down of FEMPI if we are to sustain the gains we have made instead of putting them in jeopardy. I take on board what he says about front-line services.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the process by which the most recent comprehensive review of expenditure was conducted and by which agreement was achieved on the multi-annual expenditure ceilings for 2015-17, including the number and nature of his contacts with ministerial colleagues, in particular with the Ministers for Health and Social Protection. [5860/15]
My question pertains to the comprehensive review of expenditure. We addressed some of the issues arising from the review in committee. The review document sets out a three-year expenditure path. The Minister has described it as a robust and evidence-based framework which will enhance the transparency and structure of the overall budgetary process. While such a framework is welcome, my question seeks to get under the skin of the review process by asking the Minister about the number and nature of his contacts with ministerial colleagues, including in particular the Ministers for Health and Social Protection.
The comprehensive review of expenditure process was designed to provide the Government with a complete set of options ahead of the budget to allow decisions to be made to realign spending with the priorities set out in the programme for Government, meet overall fiscal objectives, and explore new and innovative ways of delivering Government policy in a reformed public sector. Under the process, Ministers and their Departments had primary responsibility for evaluating their own spending programmes, including programmes delivered by agencies under their aegis. Each Department put in place its own internal administrative arrangements to ensure delivery of its detailed report within a challenging timeframe. The review built on the previous analysis carried out as part of the first comprehensive review of expenditure in 2011 and on the evaluations carried out by my Department in the intervening period.
My Department subsequently engaged with each Department on its expenditure report and on the expenditure ceilings needed for 2015, 2016 and 2017. My Department also prepared separate sectoral analyses which informed the engagement. All of this analysis is available on my Department's website. As a result of this review process, the Government considered the expenditure and policy options in the period before the budget. Budget decisions were taken by the Government. As the Deputy is aware, this was the first budget in six years which did not involve reductions in overall spending. The Government was able to make some targeted increases in priority areas identified through the review process, including social housing and some welfare supports, in particular. The Government's deliberations and final decisions on the expenditure priorities for 2015 to 2017 are reflected in the comprehensive expenditure report which was published on budget day.
For the purpose of clarity, the line Minister is ultimately responsible for his or her Department but the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has responsibility for public expenditure and reform, and the review document was published by him. In respect of the health budget, does he stand over the figures set out in page 77 of the review in respect of 2015, 2016 and 2017? We are told that the purpose of this exercise is to develop a realistic, evidence-based budgeting framework. I presume this also means presenting realistic, evidence-based figures and budgetary allocations for essential public services. It is strange that the figures for health represent an increase of 0.5%, if even that much, year on year. In the previous budgetary cycle, there was a need for a huge Supplementary Estimate for health. Our hospitals have overcrowded emergency departments and high trolley counts, if people are fortunate enough to be on a trolley. These figures do not tally with such evidence.
The HSE published its service plan subsequent to the budget. Its service plan for this year sets out expenditure of more than €12 billion, which it estimates will meet the needs of the health service for this year. It is interesting, and I referred to this previously, that the conclusions of the European Council published last year indicated that even though Ireland has a relatively young population, our public health expenditure was among the highest in the European Union in 2012, at 8.7% of GNI. This was significantly above the EU average of 7.3%. We have maintained that. We are actually spending more. Part of the task before us is to drill down to make sure that expenditure is going where it is required. I have never viewed this as simply an issue of money because it is also a question of what we are getting for the money. This is why we have changed the budgetary process to focus on outcomes as well as inputs. There is a view that the response to everything, and I listened to "Morning Ireland" again today, is more money as opposed to an analysis of how we are spending money.
In regard to the Supplementary Estimates, our greatly improved fiscal position at the end of last year gave us the capacity to deploy more resources. As I have stated in this House, if we have more resources to meet real pressures across all sectors, I am happy to discuss that with colleagues to see whether we can deploy them.
That is to be welcomed. We could have a long debate on the level of health expenditure. I acknowledge that we spend a lot on a per capita basis. Our method of funding and the system itself are irrational and need to be completely transformed, but that is a debate for another day. I also agree with the Minister on the question of efficiencies and that it is not simply a matter of throwing money at a problem. None the less, every year we find ourselves in a situation whereby health services are crippled. I cite the dilemmas facing accident and emergency departments in particular because these are writ large across the State. The Minister will be aware that people are left sitting on chairs, never mind lying on trolleys, and he will be aware of the loss of dignity and everything else that entails. While I grant that arguments can be made on efficiency and the method of service provision, there is also a big black financial hole. Although I will always commend the Minister on channelling additional resources to public services, the reason we introduced a Supplementary Estimate for health was not so much because additional resources became available but because the system was so strained that the additional money had to be provided.
I would love to think the review presents an accurate picture of what is required but I do not believe it does. This raises questions about the credibility of the document and, indeed, the process of engagement between the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and line Ministers.
The Deputy raised the fundamental question of how much we should spend on health. I went to the OECD to ask experts who had examined health expenditure across every OECD country what model we might consider using. There is no optimum model, however, and the pressures on accident and emergency departments in this State are replicated in Northern Ireland and the UK. The question of the appropriate amount of money to spend on health will be an ongoing challenge, particularly as expensive new drugs and treatments become available. As the Deputy is aware, people who are ill will demand such drugs and treatments. The capacity of the health system to absorb any amount of money is a real pressure and cause of debate in every state. We have to consider these issues in a balanced way. Some 70% of total hospital sector outlay goes on pay.
When there is pressure in terms of pay, do we engage with that or do we have more people? Can we look at pay rates internationally? Can we have a different skills mix delivering? We need to be innovative rather than simply replicating what we have done in the past to address an issue.
3. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the moratorium in recruitment in the public sector; the areas in which it has been lifted; and any future planned lifting of the moratorium, for example, social workers, maintenance sections of local authorities and so on. [5862/15]
I raise this issue not only in regard to pay levels being reviewed, but also in the context of the number of people working in certain areas. Many areas have been pared to the bone and a worker can only take that for so long. The first year one does extra hours, puts in the time and does more for less. After two, three or four years, it becomes a burden that is very hard to bear. I know the embargo has been lifted in respect of gardaí, nurses, architects, planners and so on. Dublin City Council, for example, has lost jobs. In 2008, it had 7,500 employees but the number is down to 4,800. That has an impact on areas such as maintenance. A major issue we are coming across every day of the week is the ability of local authorities to maintain their own properties. Is the Minister looking at that angle also? How does he see that developing? Will he lift the moratorium in general?
The Deputy will recall that as part of a package of measures presented in the budget in October, I announced an end to the staffing moratorium in the public service. This was made possible by the much welcomed improvement in the public finances last year, which, thankfully, is continuing this year. I considered it appropriate to have a more normalised approach to the management of public service staffing, allowing front-line managers freedom to respond to service needs as they arise.
My Department is currently engaging with all Departments to put in place the necessary administrative and oversight structures and controls that will govern the new arrangements. These will be formalised under delegated sanction which I will soon issue.
The delegated sanction will give Departments greater flexibility in managing staffing resources, including recruitment and promotion. This will be subject to staying within overall pay bill ceilings and it will require a commitment to deliver efficiency and reform objectives we have agreed. The ending of the moratorium does not signal across the board freedom for hiring and recruiting. I do not want to give that illusion. There will still be strict controls - there has to be. We must contain the cost of delivering public services at affordable and sustainable levels. The new approach will do this but it will also allow public services to respond and adapt more quickly to emerging needs.
The Deputy mentioned staffing issues in the area of social workers, in particular. This is not related to the moratorium. Staffing vacancies arise for various reasons and are a normal part of employment but it is fair to say that child protection and welfare is a particularly challenging area of work and involves working closely with some very vulnerable and marginalised people. These challenges mean that recruitment and retention in this area is a key issue across most countries and not only in Ireland. Tusla, the new Child and Family Agency, is currently progressing a number of initiatives to address staff shortage issues. Most importantly, it is continuing to recruit, with 164 social workers recruited since the agency was established and a further 219 social workers being recruited currently.
The Deputy will be aware that during the moratorium, this Government continued to prioritise and make provision for targeted recruitment in key front-line areas. I will not give the figures again but the Deputy knows what I have done in regard to resource teachers and so on.
Is the Minister saying to line managers in the public service to come to him to say there is a need for jobs to be created in an area, for example the maintenance section in Dublin City Council? The manager there says we need at least ten new apprentices because we cannot deliver to our tenants what is expected of us and cannot maintain properties. Has the Minister sent that message to line managers across local authorities and in the HSE so that they can give him the information he needs to be able to say we need to lift the moratorium and recruit for specific areas of work? I accept the Minister's point about social workers who are being recruited currently. In Leinster House, the service officers being recruited now are earning more money than service officers working here currently. Such issues must be addressed as well as how those injustices can be dealt with.
I thank the Deputy for her questions. I do not want to give the illusion there is now a free hand to recruit, because there is not. We made very difficult gains by reducing public sector numbers very considerably - by 10% overall. We do not have the capacity to restore all of that. We have looked at delivering systems more efficiently over the past four years.
In terms of the apprentice issue about which the Deputy spoke in Dublin City Council and so on, we had a detailed discussion in Cabinet in the past fortnight on the whole issue of apprentices and a number of initiatives are being taken. The Office of Public Works has opened an initiative to recruit apprentices and I met with the chairperson of the OPW this week to discuss that. SOLAS also has an initiative which will be announced. A number of private sector and public sector companies will take on multiples of apprentices in the future because not everybody will go into an academic environment. There will be a skills shortages as the economy recovers in these areas, so the Deputy makes a very valid point in that regard.
In regard to the devolution, it is not that I will ask line managers to make a case to me. I want to devolve the capacity to them. They will have their budget line and they may want to expend it in a different way. Rather than simply recruiting one person at a fixed rate, I would prefer to have two at a different rate. They will have the flexibility to do that.
Efficiency is important but how far can one go with efficiency? One can only do so much in an eight or a nine hour day. That is why certain areas are finding that their backs are against the wall. It is really important those areas are addressed, in particular where there is a need to provide services to people, whether through the HSE or the local authorities where there is a need for jobs not only to be created, but to assist work being done properly and efficiency. That is not happening currently. In many areas, it is taking almost a year to get a badly needed window or door into a local authority house. Those are the areas we really need to address.
One of the things that concerned me about the issue of homelessness was the number of houses and flats, in particular in Dublin, which were void and awaiting essential repairs. That is why I allocated specific funding from the stimulus moneys available to me from the sale of State assets and formally in the budget last year to bring all those voids back into play. More regular maintenance is important to address the issue of homelessness and proper housing accommodation.
We also have an initiative in regard to energy sustainability. As the Deputy knows, we are retrofitting local authority and privately owned houses where the elderly are involved. All of those issues will be, and are being, addressed as we begin to have the capacity to again spend more money. We must cut our cloth according to our measure. We can only provide the staff we have the capacity to pay into the future. We are doing that incrementally and in a way that ensures we have efficiencies and that we are not wasting money in the process.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if consideration will be given to introducing a system of self-assessment for commercial rates, in view of the systemic inability of the Valuation Office to carry out valuations in a timely manner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5960/15]
Has the Minister given consideration to introducing a system of self-assessment for commercial rates in view of the systemic inability of the Valuation Office to carry out valuations in a timely manner and in view of the fact that income tax and corporation tax are carried out on a self-assessment basis, subject to audit by the Revenue Commissioners, and work successfully?
The national revaluation programme, which amazingly is the first general valuation of all commercial property in the State since the middle of the 19th century, is making progress. It is a very significant undertaking and involves the valuation of some 146,000 properties. Completing the first revaluation and getting every local authority onto what would be a more normal five to ten year cycle of revaluations represents a sea change for the valuation system.
As the Deputy will know, the current position is that all local authorities in Dublin, Waterford and Limerick have been revalued.
These 48,000 properties represent 33% of the total. In addition, 13 public utilities representing the largest ratepayers in the State have also been revalued on a global basis.
Significant progress is being made and the programme has established a momentum that will shortly be built upon when the commissioner makes valuation orders for the revaluation of more local authorities. In parallel, the Valuation Office has continued to carry out revision work and, since 2011, a total of 22,467 revision valuations have also been completed. However, as the Deputy is aware, I am introducing measures in the Valuation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 to accelerate the revaluation programme. These include provisions for occupier-assisted valuation as well as outsourcing and streamlining the appeals process and wider use of computer-aided techniques.
"Occupier-assisted valuation" is the term being used for the form of self-assessment about which I think the Deputy is talking. It will be introduced as it better reflects what will happen in practice. Valuation of commercial property is often a very complex process, resulting in annual rates bills that can be very significant for an individual ratepayer. This requires the application of a uniform approach and is much more complex than the self-assessment for local property tax, which has been very successful. Occupier-assisted valuation will be a valuable new addition which will help to accelerate the revaluation programme and bring ratepayers into closer contact with a system that is one of the key determinants of their rates liability.
I understand what the Minister has said - he is essentially outlining the position. I am probably coming at this from a different perspective, as I think the system is not satisfactory. He is saying that up to 40% of properties have been revalued over the last seven years. If it is going to take ten or 12 years, that just is not good enough for small, medium-sized and large businesses. He might say this is the first time it has been done. There was always a valuation system.
It has taken 150 years to get here.
There has been a valuation system and people have been paying rates for the last century. A new regime came in and in 2007 we starting revaluing. When I referred to self-assessment, it was not just about the local property tax. Income tax and corporation tax are self-assessed and are working very well. In view of the massive changes in the economic cycles, there are many businesses whose properties were revalued in 2007 and 2008, at the height of their value, and they are not on the schedule to have their properties revalued for another four or five years, by which time many of those businesses will be gone. There are proposals to amalgamate this agency, and that is going to lead to further delays in the process.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Bill will formally come before the House tomorrow, and the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, will take it. He took the Bill in the Seanad and there was a very constructive debate there on some of the issues Deputy Fleming is talking about. The Minister of State is approaching the Bill, as am I, with a very open mind to make it as effective as we possibly can.
There are complexities in this, because assessment of income is quite different from assessment of value. Value has a geographical meaning as well. The same property in two different locations has a different value, whereas income is standard wherever the valuation is being made, so assessing for income tax is simpler. All the points the Deputy has raised can be addressed in the context of an open debate on Committee Stage when the new valuation Bill progresses through the House.
I understand what the Minister is saying, and we will certainly take advantage of that. However, what is required is bigger than what this amending legislation for the Valuation Office is proposing. It is a bigger issue than that.
There are also proposals, as the Minister is aware, to amalgamate the Valuation Office with Ordnance Survey Ireland and the Property Registration Authority. The new body would not be under the Minister's Department any more. When a new amalgamated agency is set up, the first year is spent setting up the new board, corporate governance, and the new chief executive. In the second year all the senior management who got jobs will be interviewing people for the ranks below them. It is a simple fact of life that every time a new organisation is set up, in the first two years a lot of the energy goes on setting up the structure of the staff and governance. That in itself is going to lead to delays in what the Minister hopes will be a relatively speedy operation. I do not think it is a speedy operation in the first place. Setting up the new agency might be an opportunity to take an entirely fresh look at the self-assessment situation. I will go into it in further detail during the passage of the legislation through the House.
We have an open mind in terms of hearing practical solutions to these issues. From the very start in 2011, we set out a fairly dramatic programme of agency rationalisation which was broadly supported across the House. We have implemented all of that and there are one or two final bits to be done. This is one of them, and we need to have the courage of our convictions and bring it to fruition. There have always been teething problems with one or two agencies coming together. We have not completed all of the work yet, but I am determined that the programme we set out in 2011 and the reviews we have done since will be brought to a conclusion this year.
5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the recent statements by the trade union leadership with respect to a proposed increase of 5% in public sector pay, in view of improving economic conditions; and if he will report on the nature and extent of his contact with the public sector unions, to date, with respect to the forthcoming pay talks. [5861/15]
This question refers to public sector pay and the scope for increases in pay, and asks the Minister to report on the extent and nature of his contacts with public sector unions to date in respect of the forthcoming pay talks to which he alluded earlier. I reference in my question a proposed increase of 5% in public sector pay. The Minister will be aware that this was posited by the general president of SIPTU, Jack O'Connor. He also referred to the rolling back of financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation and the introduction of a living wage. As I am sure the Minister is also aware, the INMO is seeking a full reversal of the cut of 7%, on average, that affected its workers.
As I have already indicated to the House, I want to enter into discussions with the public sector unions to discuss an approach to underpin the gradual wind-down of the FEMPI Acts. The public service unions have indicated that they intend to make a pay claim if the economic circumstances permit, to which inevitably the Government would have to respond. Any prudent Government will have to be looking at the potential successor to the arrangements we have in the form of the Haddington Road agreement. In this regard, I have indicated that my preference is to have the first quarter Exchequer returns available to me before inviting the unions into talks so that I will have the most up-to-date information on the public finances. The economy is recovering, in no small part due to the contribution public servants themselves have made to keeping the costs of the public service pay bill at a sustainable level. I expect that their representatives will be strongly pressing for redress for their members. That is their job.
The emergency conditions that faced the Government on taking office in March 2011 have been brought under control now. The improvements in the public finances and our significant progress towards meeting our fiscal targets have enabled us to exit the programme of assistance and regain sovereign control over our financial affairs, albeit at some considerable cost. However, with control comes responsibility for the continued prudent and effective management of the economy to ensure that our State will not return to the days when we were required to avail of international assistance and cede control of our financial affairs to others. The Government is clear that any discussions on pay will take place in the context of the State's fiscal position and the pace of financial recovery for this year and next, as well as ensuring a sustainable fiscal position over the medium horizon.
There are strong indications that reviews of pay levels will take place across a broad range of private sector employers across the economy this year, and that is welcome - it is a sign of normalisation in the economy. None the less, it is important that expectations in regard to any discussions serve to retain the improvements in productivity and competitiveness that we have helped to deliver in recent times and that have been an essential part of the improvements we have made in the economy.
I am sure that, in calling for prudent thinking and vowing not to allow the State go down the tubes and be imperilled in the way it was before, the Minister recognises that it was not working people who created that fiasco and calamity in the public sector and, for that matter, in the private sector.
The Minister says he envisages talks with the unions after the first quarter returns have become available to him. Can he be more specific? Does that mean he envisages entering into talks with them at the end of March or in April? Perhaps he could be a bit clearer on that.
The Minister talks about a wind-down of FEMPI. At what pace or in how many phases does he envisage this phased process? In a previous answer to Deputy Collins, the Minister referred to lifting the embargo, greater recruitment and flexibility in terms of the pay and conditions of new recruits, so he could have one person on a particular pay rate or two people on different pay rates.
I presume such issues and flexibilities, as the Minister would describe them, would be the subject of negotiations with the unions also.
From the very beginning, our approach has been one of discussion and agreement. Any proposals we have made on public sector pay and conditions have been negotiated with the public sector unions and agreed by vote, in contrast with the approach of the previous Government, which imposed changes arbitrarily. I agree entirely on the notion that working people and public servants in particular were not the cause of our economic collapse. A decision was made in this House to guarantee unsustainable bank positions. I voted against it, and evidence that has come before the banking inquiry recently has underscored the complete folly of the blanket guarantee. We came into government to fix a broken economy and having worked might and main with the Irish people to achieve it, we do not want to jeopardise it. We are determined to allow people who have endured much and who have not had a pay increase for seven years to have a horizon in which we will get back to normal. However, it must be done in a sustainable way.
In my previous remark on recruitment, I did not mean people would do the same job on different rates, but that the skills mix could be different. For example, if a school had the capacity to hire one type of employee but would find two different grades more effective, I would like it to have the capacity. This is a work in progress.
I thank the Minister. In this spirit, when does he envisage the talks commencing? Can he confirm whether it will be March or April? He has set out his view that anything agreed will have to be sanctioned and accepted through the normal democratic channels of the trade unions and representative bodies. Can he be more specific on his idea of the wind-down of FEMPI? We are on the same page about the fact that people have taken an enormous hit, particularly people on lower pay in the public service, of whom there are many, despite the propaganda at times that they are all coasting along on massive salaries. Although there is overpayment at the top, some people are struggling. What does the wind-down of FEMPI mean and who does the Minister propose to prioritise? Will he start at the bottom with those who are struggling the most?
I have said I want to see the first quarter figures, which I will have at the end of March or early April. I hope to have the initial scoping discussions with the public sector unions in April. I do not know whether a formal pay claim will be lodged before it. I have indicated that I want to do it face up with the public sector unions, as I approached the Haddington Road agreement, so they will know where I am coming from. As I indicated to Deputy Fleming, I hope to have the discussions completed and balloted in good time for us to incorporate allocations for whatever is agreed in the 2016 budget line, given that the Haddington Road agreement runs out in 2016. As the Deputy knows, the Haddington Road agreement cut pay only for those earning more than €65,000. The vast bulk of public servants who earn less than this did not have their salaries cut, although many regard the request for an additional two hours of work as a pay cut. I was anxious to keep money in their pockets in so far as possible.
