Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Oct 2015

Vol. 893 No. 2

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2015: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill seeks to implement the provisions agreed in the Lansdowne Road agreement earlier this year. It does so in the context of our country’s continuing economic recovery and within this Government’s policy of prudent fiscal management. We are, therefore, in a position to allocate additional moneys to public expenditure. We may now be among the fastest growing economies in the world, but this does not mean that we can throw caution to the wind, like so many Governments of the past. The Bill is not about giving away in an irresponsible and unplanned manner, but rather giving back, to the public servants who have endured so much in past years and maintained services in the face of the fiscal discipline and reform which was required.

The dire economic situation from 2009 onwards necessitated the previous five Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, Acts. Since that time, the cost to the Exchequer of public service pay and pensions has been reduced by approximately €3.7 billion, that is, by more than 21%. The measures imposed by the FEMPI Acts affecting current and retired public servants directly contribute to savings for the State of €2.2 billion annually.

This is the seventh consecutive year in which there have been no pay increases for public servants. In addition to pay freezes, public service workers have endured two, and in the cases of higher paid workers three, reductions in pay since the outbreak of the financial crisis.

Moreover, under the collective agreements necessitated by our need to cope with the exigencies of the past few years, they are now working 15 million additional hours and providing additional services with 10% fewer staff. Under those same agreements, they have also seen overtime and other payments reduced, while other conditions relating to pensions, sick leave and holidays have also been changed.

The policy of pay freezes and reductions is no longer sustainable; as growth returns, thank God, and private sector wages rise, it is only right that our nurses, gardaí and teachers should see modest increases in their take-home pay too. During the crisis their sacrifices allowed us to sustain our public services while at the same time cutting costs considerably. The legal position concerning the financial emergency legislation, which has underpinned the reductions to date, had to be addressed as part of putting in place sustainable pay-setting arrangements in the public service. The constitutionality of the Acts is predicated on the existence of a financial emergency, which has now been brought under control by the actions of the Government. Commencing the orderly winding down of this legislation in an agreed and sustainable process, rather than risking a successful legal challenge, is the appropriate and prudent approach. This Bill is the first step in that process.

Following the public service pay talks that concluded in May of this year, the Labour Relations Commission, as it was then known, put forward a series of proposals on the partial and phased restoration to public servants of deductions made under the five previous Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, Acts under the heading of the Lansdowne Road agreement. These restorations are significantly weighted in favour of the lower paid. The changes to the FEMPI measures require the Government to now bring forward primary legislation to amend the existing Acts. The text and terms of the Lansdowne Road agreement were approved by Government on 3 June and the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions accepted the text and terms of the agreement on 16 September. I firmly believe this agreement strikes the right balance between the legitimate aspirations of public servants to pay recovery and sustaining our improving public finances. The estimated additional cost of the measures agreed in the Lansdowne Road agreement is €267 million in 2016, €290 million in 2017 and €287 million in 2018. In addition, a reduction of the public service pension deduction, impacting public sector pensioners, carries a cost of €30 million for 2016, 2017 and 2018.

The public service in Ireland has changed for the better, but with the end of the emergency, any thought of returning to how things were or even staying still must be resisted; what we want is an ongoing, active rejuvenation across all of our public services. Crucially, as part of the Lansdowne Road agreement, both sides have recommitted to the pay and productivity measures introduced in the Haddington Road agreement that preceded it. The unions signalled their support for long-term and sustainable workplace reforms to underpin the delivery of a more integrated, efficient and effective public service. These include changes in the areas of performance management, work sharing, redeployment, and workforce restructuring. Active employee support for these initiatives is key, and the value of industrial relations peace and stability in this country during the crisis and in future should not be underestimated, particularly when one reflects on the scenes we have witnessed in some other European countries.

Efficient public services are essential to a modern society. When we came into office, reform of the public service was a key component of our strategy to meet the enormous challenges we faced. I am proud of the considerable improvements that we have delivered since 2011, and I again commend public servants on their effort and commitment in this regard. That process must continue, and change is now an inevitable part of working in the public service, as it is when working in any sphere of the economy. As well as being more efficient and productive, the new public service must continue to be responsive to the needs of service users and businesses and become more strategic, focusing on longer-term outcomes for society as a whole, as well as every citizen. The implementation of our Civil Service renewal plan and the wider programme of public service reform will continue to play a key role in Ireland’s recovery.

This Bill is concerned with the amendment of prior legislation, predominantly the FEMPI Acts, to give effect to what has been agreed between employers and trade unions in the Lansdowne Road agreement. As I have stated, it is the first step in the carefully managed unwinding of the FEMPI legislation necessary for the pay and pensions of public servants to be restored. As Deputies will see, the measures it introduces are proportionate and fair, with something given back to all, since all contributed, but with the lower-paid standing to receive the most relative to where they were. For the benefit of Members I will briefly outline its main provisions.

Section 3 concerns pay restoration for public servants. It amends the FEMPI (No. 2) Act 2009 to allow the reductions effected under that Act to be lessened. It is important to stress that the nature of this is progressive and measured, with lower-paid public servants standing to gain most proportionately. It is also equitable, with the rationale being that because all public servants suffered pay reductions under the previous FEMPI Acts, all should receive relief of some kind. The restoration will take place in the following way: from 1 January next, public servants earning up to €24,000 will have their salary increased by 2.5%, while those earning between €24,000 and €31,000 will receive a 1% increase. On 1 September 2017, the salary of all public servants earning less than €65,000 will be increased by €1,000. As well as these measures, this section will reverse the additional pay cuts for the higher paid from 2013, as follows. Where their annual salary is between €65,000 and €110,000, the amount by which it was reduced will be restored in two halves, first on 1 April 2017 and then on 1 January 2018. This restoration was part of the Haddington Road agreement and the Government is happy to follow through on that commitment. For public servants with an annual salary above €110,000, the amount by which it was reduced will be restored in three equal parts, on 1 April 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. This slower restoration of the cut in pay for this higher-paid group is proportionate and fair.

Section 4 amends the FEMPI Act 2013 to extend by a further two years the suspension of the operation of incremental pay scales with respect to any public servants who are not encompassed by a registered collective agreement as outlined in section 7 of that Act - that is, by the Haddington or Lansdowne Road agreements. This provision follows the existing structure of the 2013 Act and is now extended to accommodate the Lansdowne Road agreement.

Section 5 deals with the pension-related deduction payable by all public servants and introduces measures to reduce it, putting money back into the hands of those who have had to pay this additional levy on their wages for the past six years. To this end, it amends the first FEMPI Act of 2009 so that this year’s exemption threshold increases from €15,000 up to €17,500. This provision provides for outstanding monies due in respect of the small change effected in pension-related deduction rates under the Haddington Road agreement in January 2014, rather than in July 2013, when all other measures took effect. The cost of this is €20 million. From 1 January next year, the exemption threshold rises again, this time up to €26,083. This figure is a blended sum, which equates to the provisions agreed in the Lansdowne Road agreement, whereby the threshold is increased to €24,750 from 1 January 2016 and then again to €28,750 per annum from 1 September 2016. For administrative purposes, the two figures have been amalgamated into one, which will operate from the beginning of the year in order to achieve the reduction required over the course of the year. The full-year effect of the new rate is then set for 2017.

Sections 6 and 7 concern the public service pension reduction, PSPR, currently payable by retired public servants on their pensions. Both sections amend the FEMPI Act of 2010. There are three groups affected by the PSPR and they will all have the amount payable reduced over the next three years through incremental increases in the threshold for exemption. The three categories of retired public servants who pay the PSPR and will have their pensions partially and proportionally restored by the measures in this Bill are those with pensions in excess of €12,000 and who had the levy imposed by the 2010 FEMPI Act, those with pensions worth upwards of €32,500 who were also affected by the further levy in the 2013 FEMPI Act, and those who retired after 29 February 2012 and receive salaries in excess of €32,500, and thus were affected by the 2013 FEMPI Act only.

Sections 8 and 9 are straightforward amendments of the FEMPI Act of 2009. The changes being made reflect the very different economic context in which we operate, six years after the original Act, and the need to adjust upwards in some cases rather than solely downwards. The original FEMPI Act gave the Minister for Health, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the power to reduce the fees paid to health professionals by the State for services rendered. This amendment allows him or her to increase these if necessary and stipulates certain considerations to be borne in mind when doing so. We are, therefore, undoing the reduction. Similarly, section 9 will allow any other Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to increase the fees paid by the State for certain services should he or she wish to do so. Section 10 is necessary to allow an exception to be made to the provision in the FEMPI (No. 2) Act of 2009, which prevents any increase in pay for public servants. The exception being allowed for is where such an increase is provided for in a registered collective agreement, such as the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road agreements. For example, in the Haddington Road agreement it was agreed that teachers would cease to receive allowances for supervision and substitution but that from 2016 their wages would be adjusted to reflect this. This section enables that adjustment to be made by the Government, but as might be expected, that will only happen for public servants adhering to the commitments to which they have signed up.

Unlike the rest of the Bill, the last two sections deal with other Acts besides the FEMPI legislation. Section 11 comprises amendments to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act of 1961 in relation to the pay of the Judiciary. These are in two parts. The first is to provide that the pay of the Judiciary shall continue to be set by Government order but that such orders will no longer need to amend primary legislation. This is done on the advice of the Attorney General and, while not a significant change in itself, it ensures best legal practice is adhered to. The second is more substantive. It replaces the measures in the FEMPI (Amendment) Act of 2011 which extended the 10% pay reduction for new entrants into the public service to the Judiciary. Under the new measures, new appointees to the bench will be put on a three-point payscale so that within two years they can achieve parity with their peers. This is in keeping with the general measures put in place for new appointees and recent entrants to the public service and as such addresses an inequity in terms of the remuneration of judges.

Section 12 amends the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011 to give the Minister permanent powers to deal with situations where public servants become in receipt of salaries at rates higher than those approved by the Minister or in receipt of allowances which have not been approved. The Bill ensures that any such excessive remuneration that has been given without consent shall not have contractual effect and that any unsanctioned overpayment in this regard is recoverable from the public servant.

The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2015 is a relatively short Bill but its impact is considerable. It represents an important turning of the corner in that for the first time in six years, we are in a position where, due to careful economic management on the part of this Government, a FEMPI Bill is being presented to this House which will give something back to our public servants rather than taking more away. There are some public servants who will perhaps object that we could have been more generous. To them we can only plead that we must be cautious after the recklessness of our predecessors – after all, it is our rectitude which now allows us to give some restoration — and remind them that this is simply the first step in an ongoing process. As for those on the other side who would have no relief for public servants whatever, to them I can only reiterate what I have already said regarding the emergency nature of the FEMPI legislation and the legal necessity of its being unwound. I would also add that public servants have contributed very substantially to the recovery we are now experiencing and that it is just and equitable that they be rewarded for their sacrifice in the form of a partial pay restoration.

Of course, Government must also choose the right balance between competing priorities and principles. In this case, the legitimate expectation of public servants for some form of pay recovery must be weighed against broader economic considerations, including the limits placed upon our spending by fiscal ceilings, while the ever-present need to maintain reformed and sustainable public services must also be factored in. This is a time for cool heads and careful calculations, not red-hot rhetoric or bluster. Hence the Government has provided in this Bill a measured and carefully calibrated response that recognises, but does not compromise, the significant improvement and recovery from the fiscal emergency it inherited and on which the previous FEMPI legislation was predicated, and which provides a fair and reasonable return to our nurses, doctors and gardaí, all of whom were required to make considerable sacrifices during that emergency. This is restoration done responsibly.

I look forward to hearing the views of the House on the Bill and I commend this Bill to the House.

The Minister looks forward to hearing the views of the House on this Bill. We will be supporting the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill 2015 because it is based on the various agreements the Minister referred to, namely, the Lansdowne Road agreement, which succeeded the Haddington Road agreement, and it has been voted on democratically by hundreds of thousands of public servants who have, as the Minister rightly said, had severe financial measures imposed on them in recent years. This is the start of a process of unwinding that by degrees. I will talk about the unwinding process and whether it can be done by degrees or in the timescale the Minister might like versus the timescale others might choose. I will refer to the one or two aspects in the Minister's speech I want to deal with, but I also want to put some things on record from our side of the House. Some of it will cover ground the Minister has covered and go through matters in respect of the FEMPI legislation and some of the key provisions included in it. I have specific issues we will inevitably raise in detail on Committee Stage.

We have to put on the record the history of the FEMPI legislation. The first Act was passed in 2009 and it introduced what was commonly known as the pension levy. The second FEMPI Act in 2009 reduced the salaries of public sector workers. In 2010 we had FEMPI legislation again and the Act imposed a public service pension reduction, PSPR, on pensions of €12,000 and upwards. It also altered the minimum wage, which has since been amended again. In 2011 we also had the FEMPI (Amendment) Act which dealt with the situation of the existing pay reductions to be applied to sitting judges. It introduced a new wage scale for judges appointed after the commencement of the Act and that legislation also reduced the remuneration of certain other officeholders, namely, the Taoiseach and Ministers. Then we had the FEMPI Act 2013, which brought in a reduction in the remuneration of certain public servants, including Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Judiciary and other officeholders.

People might wonder what FEMPI legislation is, but it is relevant to anybody in the public service in relation to the Lansdowne Road agreement which was concluded on 29 May 2015 and the Haddington Road agreement about which we have spoken separately.

The Lansdowne Road agreement, LRA, was not unanimously accepted by all trade unions. The Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, ASTI, voted 74% against the Lansdowne Road agreement with a turnout of 31%.

On a 31% turnout.

I am one of those who, if they do not like the result, do not query the turnout. If there is a 28%, 31% or 61% turnout, as in a referendum, it is those who vote who count.

We all would like more to vote.

We all like people to vote but sometimes when people do not vote it might be due to a lack of interest or that they are saying they will let the others decide and accept the outcome regardless. Sometimes there can be indifference as well.

We cannot trumpet a result when it suits us and then when a result does not suit us, look at the underlying turnout. However, I stated there was a 31% turnout. The Teachers' Union of Ireland also voted against the Lansdowne Road agreement, with 92% opposed following a 60% turnout.

The ASTI decided not to be bound by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions aggregate acceptance of the agreement. That is something I cannot fully get to the bottom of. I do not know what that means because I thought that, generally, one was dealing with the Congress public sector committee here. It is a issue that is left hanging. Maybe it has been resolved to the knowledge and satisfaction of others.

In July 2015, the Lansdowne Road agreement was also rejected by the Irish Medical Organisation, with 93% voting against. They stated that the agreement does nothing to address the real crisis in the health service. Therefore, that vote was not exactly on the issue, but one could see the frustration and that the staff on the front line dealing with the health service are not happy with the funding of the health service. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors rejected the agreement by a majority of 53.6%. Those are merely a handful. We all will be aware that once the big unions are on-side, it is a done deal. One could argue that the smaller unions often have the luxury of being able to vote "No" in the full knowledge that it has already been carried in any event, but that will bring us to the overall collective agreement.

The consequences of non-compliance with the Lansdowne Road agreement have been raised by the ASTI in the context of increments and other adjustments to the teacher supervision and substitution allowance. The Haddington Road agreement included a commitment to address the supervision and substitution allowance for teachers at the 2011 rate of €1,592 by way of salary increases in two phases, in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. Section 10 of the Bill provides the statutory basis to effect the provisions of this commitment regarding supervision and substitution such that the pay of public servants may be adjusted to reflect the terms of a collective agreement. That is an issue to which we will have to return because some might feel that this could be interpreted as a punitive measure contained in the FEMPI legislation, as being unfair and heavy handed and disproportionate in reacting to the specific concerns of those involved in the provision of education. Those are the bones of contention.

On the bigger picture, as I stated, the general agreement has been accepted, has been voted on by public servants and it would be remiss of us not to support the implementation of this agreement. My party has been involved in lots of national pay agreements over many years and we always honoured them, both in the spirit and to the letter of the law. I do not see any reason to depart from our tradition on either public sector pay agreements or wider agreements including those from the farming and voluntary sectors. This agreement is not one of the latter agreements. It is an agreement between the Government and its employees. It is not a wider social agreement. There are those - I am sure the party the Minister, Deputy Howlin, is in government with - who might not agree with them getting any increase at all and, probably, if they had their way, would even cut their numbers and their salaries a little more if they could, and they complain about the pensions. Employees are paying substantially to their public sector pensions - it is only right to acknowledge that - through superannuation and pension deductions. That is always forgotten about in some of the equations and it is important to state.

In relation to the remuneration of public servants, the increases proposed under the Bill for those earning up to €24,000 is 2.5% on 1 January next year - the Government was correct to wait until the staff get the money in their pockets before it goes to the polls. The Government will hope the staff will be grateful for it but they will feel that it is their money, they have earned it and they should be getting it. The days of politicians feeling that people will be grateful for doing what they are elected to do are gone, if some ever thought they did. Those earning from €24,000 to €31,000 will get a 1% increase as well on 1 January. Those earning up to €65,000 will get €1,000 in September 2017 - they must wait as it is a little bit down the road.

Some of the staff on those higher salaries will qualify for the restoration of the 2013 reductions in pay under Haddington Road. Oireachtas Members, who are on a salary between €65,000 and €110,000, will get 50% of the 2013 reduction in April 2017. The Minister might clarify, for those Members who are here today who might not be here at that date, what is the exact position and will it be restored. He might, at Committee Stage-----

Does the Deputy mean, "for pension purposes"?

Exactly, he might clarify that. At Committee Stage, we can tease that out. Those Members will get the second 50% of that 2013 FEMPI Act reduction on 1 January 2018. One must remember that those are really only the ones who experienced a reduction under the Haddington Road agreement, in which there was a sunset clause. I will not join the bandwagon of those who say TDs should work for nothing. There are those who peddle a myth that we should work for the average industrial wage. There is no Member in this House of any party living on the average industrial wage. Some Members say they do but we know it is not true. We look at them, we see the cars they drive and we see they spend more at elections than most of us do. The question is where are the funds coming from. It might not be coming through their salaries, but certainly they have more access to funds than most of us have.

Those on the higher salaries of over €110,000 must wait another year to get their Haddington Road agreement reductions back. Some say they should not get it back but I am on public record as stating that where an agreement is freely entered into, negotiated, voted on and accepted by public servants, I would not be comfortable voting against it, and that is what has been negotiated.

Pension-related deductions on pensions is a thorny issue on which the Alliance of Retired Public Servants has spoken to us. They met a number of us in recent days and I will come back to their particular issue.

Section 9 of the Bill deals with a variation rather than a reduction in payment to health professionals. That is fine, and I will not quibble over that. I might ask the Minister to clarify what he has in mind. I mentioned earlier this issue of the collective agreement.

The one issue I am intrigued about is the amendment for judges' pay in the Bill. I note the briefing note we received from the Government Whip's office mentioned that the Office of the Attorney General spoke of this. Why would he? Is he not one of them himself? Is he not a member of the legal profession?

She is a member of the legal profession and maybe would hope to join that august body some day down the road. I always worry about members of the legal profession giving Government advice on giving salary increases to other members of the legal profession. I must put on record that I question this.

In accordance with advice from the Office of the Attorney General, amendments to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act of 1961 are being brought forward to regularise the position with regard to the arrangements for remuneration of members of the Judiciary. This Act also provides that persons newly appointed to the Bench are not restricted from achieving pay parity with existing judges following the application of measures of the FEMPI Act 2010. The Minister might have an opportunity to clarify it. On the face of it, although I may be wrong, there is something fundamentally wrong if we are passing legislation here to allow judges not to be restricted from achieving pay parity with those who were appointed some time ago. Can we do that for teachers?

We have done it.

I refer to teachers who have come in on low pay.

We have done that.

Okay. I will get the Minister to clarify it.

There is an incremental scale for teachers.

Through the Chair. This is Second Stage.

I am sorry. I ask the question and the Minister can answer it in due course. I would be most concerned that the provision would apply to all public servants, including nurses, gardaí and teachers. Any of us who were listening to the radio in the past week or two will have been shocked to hear about the net take-home pay of some new gardaí, the Garda recruits and gardaí who are putting their lives on the line to look after the rest of us.

They are getting what most people would not consider to be a decent salary for the work they do. Perhaps the Minister might deal with it in his reply or we can tease it out on Committee Stage. I will be happy if the Minister says the measure will be reversed in respect of those who came in on the lower pay scales and perhaps he might provide a detailed timeframe in this regard. I would be very pleased to support such a measure, given that it is an ongoing, burning issue with many people.

I return to the basis for the continued existence of the FEMPI legislation. While we all accept the reason it was introduced in the first instance, the Minister stated earlier:

The legal position concerning the financial emergency legislation, which has underpinned the reductions to date, had to be addressed as part of putting in place sustainable pay-setting arrangements in the public service for the future. The constitutionality of the Acts is predicated on the existence of a financial emergency ...

When the Minister goes canvassing next year, will he tell people we are still in a financial emergency? I have heard nothing-----

Will the Deputy speak through the Chair, please?

I apologise. That was a rhetorical question.

Many people are waiting to speak. It is getting late in the evening. We cannot have conversations across the House. This is Second Stage and Deputies should address their remarks through the Chair.

We will save the conversation for Committee Stage and we will still do it through the Chair at that point. My apologies for not sticking to the formal process. I do not think we are in a financial emergency. I have listened to Minister after Minister, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and everybody else explaining to the people how wonderfully well the country is doing, how great the country is and how it is the greatest little country in which to do business. Nothing the Government has said is consistent with the Minister stating that we continue to grapple with a financial emergency which needs to be brought under control. The Minister is rightly concerned. He said, "Commencing the orderly wind down of this legislation in an agreed and sustainable process, rather than risking a successful legal challenge, is the appropriate and prudent approach [to take]."

Many people would question whether the Government can say we are in a financial emergency in light of the recent announcement, which gives the lie to the assertion that there is such an emergency. There was a financial emergency and, in that context, I will return and deal in specific detail with the report the Minister issued to the Oireachtas in June. Ireland has done well. We have come through the financial emergency and we must be careful and prudent. However, if somebody challenged this in a court, no judge would say there is a financial emergency.

The expenditure ceiling for 2015, announced 12 months ago on budget day 2014, was €53.626 billion. The actual expenditure for 2015, announced last week on budget day, October 2015, was €54.875 billion, an excess of approximately €1.25 billion. People are talking about Supplementary Estimates of the order of €1.5 billion. I do not know what will be the exact figure because we have not seen the details yet. Last week, the expenditure ceilings for 2016 were announced. We are talking about expenditure of up to €55.275 billion, which is another €382 million on top of the Supplementary Estimates of €1.249 billion for 2015. Over those few days last week, at the stroke of a pen, expenditure for 2015 was increased by €1.249 billion. On budget day, it was also announced that expenditure for 2016 will be opening with an extra €1.249 million to match the Supplementary Estimate for the coming year, 2016. In addition, new measures of approximately €400 million or more were announced. I estimate that in those few days the Government announced an extra €2.89 billion in expenditure for the 15-month period from October 2015 to the end of 2016. It is almost €3 billion extra and in the region of €1.5 billion in Supplementary Estimates. With the same amount added into the opening figures for next year and new initiatives announced on budget day of several hundred million, it is inconceivable that the Government can increase expenditure by €3 billion while trying to tell people there is a financial emergency. I question the feasibility of doing so.

At a particular point we mentioned the possibility of having a discussion - perhaps on Committee Stage - regarding the annual review and report to the Houses of the Oireachtas under section 12 of the FEMPI legislation, which was published in June 2015. We did not have opportunity to do so. Perhaps the committee schedules were too full or we did not have time in the House. I am not arguing on it. While some people might find this a dry topic to discuss, we are elected to do so. Members who deal with public expenditure and the finance committee are elected to do this job. The report examined the economic context and stated that real GDP in 2014 was still 2% lower than that of 2007. However, we have probably now surpassed the peak figure of 2007.

The Minister's report also states that the economic recovery is well under way, but goes on to state that, "while recent improvements in competitiveness have been beneficial, it is important to highlight that as a small, open economy the Irish economy is particularly susceptible to external risks". It mentions oil prices, the situation in Greece, unconventional monetary policy, low interest rates and the current low inflation rate. Using this formula, we could be in surplus and have no debt and the Government could say we are still in a financial emergency because we are a small open economy susceptible to oil prices, low inflation, low interest rates and the Greek situation. This is not an acceptable reason for saying Ireland should continue to be in a state of emergency.

The Minister's report mentions tax receipts. This year, income tax receipts are predicted to be higher than they were at the height of the boom. The report refers to general Government debt measures as part of the justification for the continued existence of the financial emergency. The Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Burton, said here that in a year's time our debt will reach the European average. This is not an emergency situation, unless somebody tells Angela Merkel she has an emergency in her country, the debt levels of which those of Ireland match. I do not buy it and nobody else would. It is important that there be a bit of realism. I am not talking about unwinding everything in FEMPI. Rather, I am referring to being real and calling a spade a spade. There is no financial emergency. We have announced an extra €3 billion of expenditure for the period between October of this year and the end of next year. This does not tally with what one would expect during a financial emergency. No judge could reconcile the two. He or she could only conclude, based on the Government's actions, that there is no financial emergency.

The Minister referred to the consideration of the need to continue the provisions of the Act and I understand what he is saying. I am raising matters here that I could have raised on Committee Stage, had there been a committee meeting. One group about which I am also particularly concerned is the Alliance of Retired Public Servants. The Minister met the group several times. There are approximately 140,000 retired public servants and they were denied access to the Croke Park and Haddington Road talks because these involved discussions on pay, whereas those to whom I refer are in receipt of pensions.

The group did not exist at that stage.

It did not exist. For some time, we have been calling for a mechanism to be found for letting the group into the talks, given that its members were affected by them. Pensions were cut disproportionately for those with higher incomes. While they are saying that the changes in the legislation are welcome, the Alliance of Retired Public Servants continues to have concerns.

They accept that in January 2016, some €400 will be returned to most pensioners affected by the public service pension reduction, with a further €500 to be returned in 2017 and a further €780 to be returned in 2018. While that will benefit most of those affected by the public service pension reduction, there will continue to be a group that will not be free of its impact. I tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise and Reform last week seeking to know whether he would consider the points made by the alliance. The reply, which came from the Minister for Finance, made it clear that no further changes are envisaged. The alliance sought a meeting with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and a separate meeting with the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. Both Ministers replied by saying they were not prepared to agree to meet the alliance, which was very disappointing. The alliance is disappointed because it feels that in a democracy, its numbers should at least entitle it to a meeting. It was essentially told in the parliamentary reply I received through the Minister's officials that the Minister is well aware of these matters. The Ministers, Deputies Bruton and Burton, have said they are well aware of the issues of concern to the group and those issues have been noted. That was not satisfactory from the point of view of the alliance. I would like this aspect of the matter to be dealt with in advance of Committee Stage.

It is welcome that we are starting this process. Everybody here needs to be careful and not reckless. We cannot unwind everything in the FEMPI legislation. There are people in this House who think that as part of the unwinding of the FEMPI legislation, all the money that was deducted over the past five years should be handed back in back pay. All I can say is that I was almost knocked over when I heard that request. I said upfront that this was the biggest ask ever to be put to me. We are where we are. It seems that pay and pensions will be restored in due course. It is to be hoped that some of those who will not benefit immediately from the unwinding of this legislation will benefit down the road. It is too much to ask for the reinstatement in the form of back pay of everything that was deducted since 2009. I have to put that on the record. I would support the restoration of pay and pensions in an orderly and constructive manner as long as the cost of meeting our obligations does not affect this country's competitiveness.

I concede that we are still in a very difficult financial situation with regard to one issue. I am not speaking about the national debt, which is generally coming under control. We are going to be heading to European average figures very soon. I refer instead to the level of personal debt associated with people's high mortgages and negative equity. I would consider that to be our biggest debt issue. When the Government got a big national debt under control in previous recessions, the country got going more quickly. It is taking a little longer on this occasion because of the high level of debt associated with people having to pay expensive mortgages and being in negative equity. Many of the people in question are public servants, although many of them are not. I issued a statement in advance of these talks saying that any increase in public service pay should be done in tandem with pay increases in the private sector. The public sector should not run ahead of the private sector and should not lag behind the private sector. That is why we recommended in the submission we made when the Low Pay Commission was looking at the situation that the increase in the minimum wage should come in at the same time as these increases. We did not know the date. We probably said it should happen in January 2016. The increase in the minimum wage for those in the private sector is being made in January 2016. The increases under this legislation and the Lansdowne Road agreement are commencing in January 2016. That is right. At the beginning of this process, I called for those increases to happen in tandem. There has to be a bit of cohesion in society. It would be very wrong for one group to run ahead of or lag behind the other group. I do not think there is anyone in the public sector on the minimum wage, by and large. Maybe they are not all on the living wage, but certainly none of them is on the minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage will benefit people in the private sector and this will benefit people in the public sector. It will be good for people to feel there is some improvement in their financial circumstances. They can look forward to an eventual declaration by a Minister that the financial emergency is over. I hope this will happen as soon as possible. Maybe it will happen in June of next year, although I do not know who will be the relevant Minister then.

I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the Minister spoke. I have read his speech. Speed-reading is one of my varied talents. As I listened to Deputy Fleming, I almost mistook him for a Government Deputy. He announced that the emergency is over and almost lauded the Minister for his efforts in that regard. It seems that Deputy Fleming is labouring under the misapprehension that there are people out there, or even in here, who expect that Deputies, Ministers or the Taoiseach "should work for nothing". I would like to set the record straight by assuring the Deputy that it is not the case that there are people who feel that way. As Deputies are aware, in the course of this Dáil I have had many long debates with the Minister about the excessive pay that is received by a small minority of people within the public service and the Civil Service. It has never been my position, or Sinn Féin's position, to demand that people "should work for nothing". Slavery is not something we recommend. We have insisted on pay moderation and on a recognition that a small minority of people within the system are overpaid. Even with the FEMPI cuts taking effect, some of the individuals in question are still overpaid in our estimation. If the Government and the Oireachtas in its entirety are to have any credibility, we have to recognise that such a yawning gap between the pay of those at the bottom and those at the top within the public sector cannot be tolerated. If we do not address the gap between the workers in the private and public sectors who are struggling and the tiny number of people at the top, we cannot imagine that our voices will carry any weight in the public domain. I have just been at a meeting in my neighbourhood in Cabra. We were discussing the budget. I can tell the Minister that it has not gone down terribly well.

I am not surprised that is the case at one of the Deputy's meetings.

Excessive pay was one of the issues that arose at the meeting. This is an issue that weighs on the public mind. I do not think there is any point in trying to disregard it or try to portray it as some kind of crazed agenda for poverty among public servants or politicians. There needs to be an understanding that although we should be paid well, we are not a special category of citizens and we should very quickly lose any delusion of excessive entitlement. For the record, I drive a Nissan Micra. If Deputy Fleming is concerned about very big cars, I can assure him that I do not occupy one of them.

Just a nice house.

I do have a nice house. One of the things that happened when the FEMPI measures were introduced set a very dangerous and worrying precedent. I refer to the manner in which the collective bargaining system used by the State, as an employer, to deal with its employees and strike pay arrangements with them was fatally undermined. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, will recall that at the time of the Croke Park agreement, there were regular discussions in here and in studios about the negotiations that were under way with the trade unions, and by extension with their membership, always with the knowledge that if they did not play ball, the Minister would step in and legislate anyway. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, was using a big stick to warn people to make a deal.

I did not do Croke Park.

This also applies to subsequent agreements. The Minister said he would legislate if a deal was not made. That represented a fundamental and basic shift in how business is done. I do not think it was a positive development. Whatever about the Government's predecessors in Fianna Fáil, I do not believe this approach was reflective of traditional Labour Party values as I understand them.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 October 2015.
Top
Share