Priority Questions
7. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the status of the preparations for likely flooding during winter 2016 and spring 2017; the amount of money which has been drawn down by local authorities to date in 2016; the amount scheduled to be drawn down between now and year end; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30935/16]
View answerBefore I introduce my question, I sought to ask the Minister a question today about the dispute with the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, the Garda Representative Association, GRA, and the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland, ASTI, although I note Deputy Paul Murphy also asked a question about the ASTI. The questions were referred to line Ministers, which is very frustrating. It happens a lot in the Department that questions get sent down the line to line Ministers even though the focus is fully on the Department.
That is a matter for the Department.
I want to record my frustration with it. Many people in communities throughout the country are in fear of flooding. Even though it is the middle of October and an autumnal day today, many communities face the prospect of their houses and businesses being destroyed once again, in some cases for the second or third time in less than 12 months. What exactly has been done to date? How much money has been committed to local authorities and has been drawn down? What is the status of the Department's plans for a relocation scheme and for assistance and insurance for people who want to move away from the distress? There has been a policy change on the dredging of rivers which was announced last night. I want to pursue that with the Minister of State.
The Deputy deviated a bit from his question so I will begin by answering the question that was submitted by the Deputy.
The Office of Public Works, OPW, has a lead co-ordination role in flood risk management generally but it does not play a lead role in responding to flood events, which is the responsibility of the local authorities. The local authorities are required to plan and prepare for such events in accordance with the general arrangements for co-ordination of the front-line emergency services set out in the framework for major emergency management which comes under the remit of the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. That Department is the lead Department for co-ordinating the response to severe weather.
The response to all emergencies is appropriately locally led in the first instance through the three designated principal response agencies of An Garda Síochána, local authorities and the Health Service Executive which respond to assist citizens in need and manage consequences at local level. Specific guidance for responding to severe weather events is outlined in A Guide to Flood Emergencies 2013 and A Guide to Severe Weather Events 2010. Local authorities have severe weather sub-plans in place based on this guidance material.
Met Éireann and the Office of Public Works alert local authorities directly when severe weather, high tides or storm surges are forecast, and such warnings are received by a severe weather assessment team within a local authority. The severe weather assessment team takes the appropriate action to scale a response and to ensure resources are in place to support a response. During last winter’s flooding, this approach helped to anticipate and prepare for the response required by local authorities.
The procedures for co-ordination of emergencies at national level, such as flooding events, are set out in the Guidelines for Coordinating a National-Level Emergency/Crisis Response, published by the Office of Emergency Planning in the Department of Defence in 2011.
The Minister of State's time has expired.
With regard to the Deputy's question about money spent, I presume he is talking about the minor works programme. Since the scheme was introduced, €37 million has been allocated to the local authorities, bringing protection to 4,500 houses.
The Minister of State can come back in.
I do not want to personalise this because the Minister of State has brought great energy and focus to the issue. His answer goes to the heart of one of the problems here. It is a problem for another Department, the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. The purpose of a Minister with responsibility for flooding was to take responsibility for every part of it. Some consideration should be given to the Minister of State getting ministerial responsibility in that Department to lead the focus there.
Crossmolina was almost flooded on 11 September when there were extraordinary levels of water three months before such levels were expected, which gives an idea of what the problem will be throughout the country because of the absence of a good summer. If a person's house is going to be flooded this October or November, he or she does not care what Department the Minister of State is in, he or she just wants somebody to do a good job. People want somebody to get on with the job. I am not convinced the OPW understands the pressure households are under. In response to a question from our colleague, Deputy Murphy, recently, the chair of the OPW spoke of a five-year plan and of going further than that. Does the chair of the OPW understand what it is like to have to wake up every morning and listen to the weather forecast to know if one's house will be flooded in the next few hours? That is the experience of communities throughout the country. The Minister of State has experienced it directly.
I will reiterate a number of things. The chair of the OPW was talking about the five-year investment programme of €430 million by the Government for flood relief. There was another issue of the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, which is a ten-year plan. People have suggested that it means nothing will happen for ten years, which is wrong. Last year we had four flood relief schemes under construction. By the end of this year, there will be 12 relief schemes under construction in the country. There are more than 20 schemes in different stages of planning and design. The minor works, which I explained to the Deputy, have so far delivered protection to 4,500 properties.
To return to one other issue that came up, the Office of Emergency Planning will launch its Be Winter Ready campaign on 9 November. The Department is helping with that and is part of that group. The lead is being taken by the Department of Defence. There is no way we are leaving anything for five years. We are doing everything we can at this stage.
I thank the Minister of State for his clarification on CFRAM because the impression was that it is a five or ten-year process. Will the Minister of State give me an update on the scheme for Crossmolina? A third Department is being introduced into the equation now. We have the OPW, which is under the aegis of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and the Department of Defence. That is why there is such a lack of an emergency response when an event happens. If a person is in business or living in an area, he or she wants an immediate response. Actually, he or she does not want it to happen at all. Will the Minister of State give me an update on Crossmolina and the status of the insurance scheme for businesses that cannot get insurance?
I am aware of houses that have schemes in place but they are subject to a 100% increase in their insurance premium, if they can get it. Finally, there is the concept of a relocation scheme for people who wish to move out of flood affected areas into areas that will not be affected by floods.
Regarding the relocation scheme and the insurance, we have had discussions in the interdepartmental group and we are meeting again next Tuesday. It is to be hoped we will bring an interim report from there to Cabinet with recommendations on those schemes. Also on the subject of insurance, there is a memorandum of understanding in place between the OPW and Insurance Ireland. It is now the case that Insurance Ireland meets with the Office of Public Works on a quarterly basis, rather than once every two years, to try to address issues relating to temporary flood barriers that are put in place and the insurance. We are working closely with Insurance Ireland to get over all the technical questions it has on that.
With regard to Crossmolina, works are being carried out on cleaning downstream from the bridge. That was done last week. Approximately €150,000 has been allocated for minor works to improve flood barriers along the river in the town. The pilot scheme for the floodgates for the houses is ongoing and they should be installed in the next month. Finally, the major flood relief scheme is being designed currently. Due to the issue with the bridge, consideration is being given to doing the bypass channel. That scheme will come up for exhibition next year.
8. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the way it is possible to justify pay increases for Deputies in April 2017 and again in January 2018 in view of the fact there was a 10 cent increase in the minimum wage and very little of substance in the budget for low and middle income families; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31163/16]
View answerHow is it possible to justify pay increases for the Taoiseach, Ministers, Deputies and Senators at a time when public servants are engaging in industrial action due to genuine concerns about their pay? Strike action has been threatened by teachers and members of An Garda Síochána. Whoever came up with the proposed increase arrived at the appropriate date, April Fools' Day, to introduce it. How can the Minister stand over pay increases and pay restoration for Deputies and politicians on 1 April next?
There is always a difficulty in having any group decide their own pay and that is particularly the case for those involved in public life. I remind Deputies that the principle that parliamentarians should be paid is a fundamental part of how we support our democratic process. If we do not pay our parliamentarians a wage to reflect the responsibilities they have, we will confine our pool of potential politicians to those of independent means or, in a worse case scenario, to those who might be beholden to others. We are all aware of the risks that can pose to the proper practice of politics.
The question therefore becomes what is a reasonable rate of pay for the responsibilities involved and who should decide this. Some Members will recall the recommendation of the 38th report of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector in 2000 that the pay of Deputies should be linked to the principal officer grade in the Civil Service. That recommendation was based on independent and expert consideration of the level of responsibility and the commensurate level of pay. The review body also recommended that Senators be paid 70% of the Teachta Dála rate. The Government of the day accepted that recommendation and the pay of Deputies has followed this link ever since, including through the pay cuts of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act, FEMPI, and now through the pay restoration measures involved in the unwinding of that same legislation.
The FEMPI legislation provided for pay reductions for all public servants on a progressive basis. Similarly, provision for all public servants was included in the phased unwinding of the FEMPI measures. Of course, notwithstanding the enactment of the FEMPI Act 2015, it remains open to Members of the Oireachtas to forego the restoration of the pay reduction on a voluntary basis.
The Minister referred to a fair wage for Members of the Oireachtas and said that the wage should reflect the responsibilities we have. We are very well paid, and I am sure the Minister accepts that. We receive two and a half times the average industrial wage. Currently, a public sector worker on an average salary of between €35,000 and €40,000 per annum will receive a €1,000 increase or restoration, yet those who are on over €65,000, including Members of the House, will receive a minimum of 8%, which is a total of €5,400. That is an increase of over €100 per week. I do not believe that is justified. The Minister can talk about linking our pay to that of principal officers, but ultimately the decisions are made by this House. We are the people who amended the FEMPI legislation. The Government of the day introduced the FEMPI Act - we opposed it - which unilaterally took money from public servants. People on salaries below €65,000 are not seeing pay restoration. That is the reason they are threatening strike action. People on more than €65,000, including Members of the House, will get increases, and I do not believe that is fair. This is a matter of fairness.
The Deputy will be aware, although he did not acknowledge it in the question he put to me, that yesterday the Cabinet made the decision that office holders would forfeit the wage restoration that is due under the lifetime of the Lansdowne Road agreement. That decision by this Government, reaffirming the decision of the last Government, was made precisely in recognition of the challenges our country still faces. We acknowledge that the country is recovering but we have always been clear that it is not yet a recovered country. For that reason, anybody who is privileged to be a member of the Government is deeply aware of the challenges that members of the public services and beyond still face. We made the decision, and it was the right decision, to forfeit that phase of wage restoration. I am being very clear about the Government's policy on politicians' pay. I ask the Deputy to clarify Sinn Féin's policy on this matter. For a period of time I heard the party say that politicians should only be paid the average industrial wage. Will the Deputy clarify if that is still the case and, if it is, what is the amount of money?
That is the greatest red herring I have encountered in a long time - talk about diversionary tactics. I take the average industrial wage. I employ somebody. I have taken somebody off the live register and I pay them €300 per week, which comes out of my salary. I do that voluntarily, not to get any credit. I do it because I provide an enhanced constituency service.
I welcome the fact that office holders, as the Minister put it, have forfeited any increases that may be due to them, but logically it should follow that the same should happen in the case of Deputies. Why should Deputies get pay restoration on 1 April next? When the legislation was first brought to the House we put forward amendments to reduce Deputies' pay to €75,000. We voted against the provisions that allowed this to happen in the first place and in a few weeks we will bring forward a motion that will again seek to stop these unfair payments to Deputies. This is not because I do not believe that people should be paid fairly but because I believe it is unfair that somebody on €30,000 or €40,00 per year, an average wage in the public sector, is getting pay restoration of €1,000 while Deputies are expected to take €5,400. It is simply not fair and the Minister must accept that.
That is not the question I asked.
On the question, Minister.
I am answering the question.
No, speak on the question on the Order Paper.
I clearly outlined the policy of office holders in this Government regarding pay restoration. I answered the Deputy's question by outlining the principles upon which Deputies should be paid. It is always subject to agreement in the House. It is vital that we adhere to the principle that politicians do not set other politicians' pay. The benefit of this anchor is that it allows the matter to be dealt with in a clear and unprejudiced fashion. I put a question to the Deputy and he still has not answered it. What amount of money does he draw down as his wages? In light of the fact that his party is tabling a Private Members' motion on this matter, will he sign a waiver form and relinquish his share back to the Exchequer? I ask the Deputy to answer that question now.
The next question is from Deputy Calleary.
9. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the arrangements for the 2017 review of capital spending; the intended process; the intended weighting that will be attached to elements of the review such as regional development, equality of access to capital services and so on; the planned level of and timeframe for consultation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31005/16]
View answerThe current capital plan, which was published in 2015, lacked any ambition and did not reflect the urgency required to tackle the country's growing infrastructure needs.
The Minister has committed to a review of that plan and a review of capital spending in early 2017. I want to discuss with him how this review will proceed and whether the final outcome will be a plan that stands up to scrutiny for a country that wants to take its place in the 21st century.
While the final details of the proposed approach are currently being examined, I am happy to set out for the Deputy the main current elements of the proposed review of the capital plan. As is normal in respect of a multi-annual capital programme, a commitment was made to conduct a mid-term review in 2017 in order to take stock of progress and provide the Government with an opportunity to reaffirm priorities.
As the Deputy will be aware, A Programme for a Partnership Government committed to seeking Oireachtas approval for additional capital investment of €4 billion over the period of the plan. This was further increased to €5.14 billion in the summer economic statement. The priority areas which were identified by Government to benefit from this increased funding included transport, broadband, health, education and flood defences. Due to the obvious need for additional investment in housing, the Government also agreed earlier this year that €2.2 billion of the additional capital should be allocated to the Government's initiatives aimed at tackling the housing crisis while in budget 2017, the Government also allocated additional capital funding for 2017 with further consequences for 2018 and 2019.
In respect of the process about which the Deputy asked, it is my intention that the outcome of the review will be ready in time for publication as part of the 2017 mid-year expenditure report and be available to Government in time to shape the discussion on final capital allocations for 2018 to 2021 in the context of budget 2018. We are commencing this review by seeking submissions from all Government Departments. I am also considering the possibility of wider consultation but I want to ensure that there is an opportunity to use that consultation to influence this process so we conclude it in a timely fashion.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As part of this review, work will commence on a much more fundamental review of Ireland's long term infrastructural requirements to include a benchmarking of our existing infrastructure by reference to that of other comparable countries, an assessment of our likely infrastructural needs over a much longer term than the current capital plan and consideration of how best these needs can be met.
This is the last chance saloon for many capital projects such as those in broadband and roads. When one looks at the 2015 capital plan, one can see that €4.4 billion of the €6 billion envisaged for roads went predominantly towards maintaining the existing network so we are not getting any sense of expanding the existing road network. Will the Minister confine the review to current capital spending envelopes or is he going to look at alternative sources of financing? In September, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, raised the prospect of allowing greater flexibility around rules for capital spending to assist Europe. This is in the context of the challenge this country faces from Brexit. As I said previously, we are on the front line with regard to Brexit and we need to up our game with regard with infrastructure to respond to that. Will the Minister look at increased investment from the European Investment Fund or the European Investment Bank that we can draw down on an "off the books" basis to address our infrastructural issues in a proper and cohesive manner?
The Deputy asked me whether I would consider alternative capital funding sources for capital projects and within that, the relationship we might have with the European Investment Bank. This is an issue I want to consider in terms of our capital review. It will need to look at not just the capital projects that may or may not be progressed but current sources of capital funding and potential sources of such funding in the future. I agree with the Deputy and I believe our relationship with the European Investment Bank and options this could provide in the future need to be looked at again. For example, Luas cross city would not be within a year of being completed nor would the Alexandra Basin project in Dublin Port be underway without the work of the European Investment Bank. I would like to see further opportunities open to us to deliver further funding for further projects.
What will be the element in the review in respect of the delivery of projects? The Minister mentioned the Luas cross city and the Alexandra Basin projects. We do not have a good record of delivering large-scale infrastructure projects on time and on budget. In the context of what will be a limited capital plan, what extra elements will the Minister introduce to ensure delivery on time, on budget and on a cross-island basis so that it will not just be here in the city but the regions will get a chance to benefit from an infrastructural investment programme arising from this capital review? What weighting will be given not just to regional plans but to communities within the city that are not getting their fair share? A draft report of the inner city group was leaked to the newspapers today which identifies a shortage of community funding. There are capital needs within this city as well that need to be prioritised within this review.
The answer to the question of how we can better deal with delivering projects on time and in line with their original expectations is the fact that we have a strengthened public service spending code and an entire Department in the form of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that is focused on this area. The creation of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, which merged the Rail Procurement Agency and the National Roads Authority, is a significant development in how we deliver big projects better in the future. Its track record in respect of Luas cross city and the delivery of public private partnerships for new roads is a positive and good one. Regional balance will inform this capital programme, as was the case with the previous one. The country's response to Brexit cannot be a Dublin response. It must be a national response and regional consideration is vital in that.
10. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will consider ending pay inequality by restoring a common pay scale for all public sector workers and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31006/16]
View answerEqual pay for equal work is meant to be a basic principle that nobody would dispute. In that case, how can the Minister and Government stand over a situation of real pay inequality in our public sector? For example, new entrants to teaching could be €170,000 or more worse off over a career on the basis of when they entered the workforce.
The 10% reductions in starting pay for certain new entrants were introduced by the then Government in January 2011 as part of the national recovery plan in order to reduce the public service pay bill. The issue of addressing the difference in incremental salary scales between those public servants who entered public service employment since 2011 and those who entered before that date was addressed with the relevant union interests under the provisions of the Haddington Road agreement, HRA. From 1 November 2013, pre and post-2011 pay scales were merged into a single consolidated scale applicable to each grade. Generally, the third point of 1 November 2013 pay scale is equivalent to the first point of scale of the pre-2011 scale.
The Lansdowne Road agreement provides the mechanism through which outstanding issues of concern to new recruits to the public service can be addressed in a negotiated way. This is reflected in the recent agreement between my Department, the Department of Education and Skills, the INTO and the TUI in respect of new entrant teacher pay restoration. Contingent on the introduction of certain reform measures, a new incremental salary scale will be developed which is designed to address the current difference in pay for teachers recruited since 1 February 2012. The revised salary arrangement will be implemented in two phases on 1 January 2017 and 1 January 2018. The effect of this will be to assimilate all post-1 January 2011 and post-1 February 2012 new entrants to teaching onto a single new salary scale which will incorporate the honours primary degree allowance. This new arrangement will apply to members of the teachers' unions which have signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement, namely, the INTO and TUI, which is evidence of how the Lansdowne Road agreement can be used to tackle issues of concern to public servants.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Government is wholly committed to the implementation of the Lansdowne Road agreement as the most appropriate way for progress to be made on pay restoration and reform of our public services into the future. This agreement shows how the LRA can resolve issues of concern for our public servants.
The Lansdowne Road agreement is evidence of how it cannot be used to tackle issues of concern.
This is why ASTI is right and is to be saluted for the actions it is taking. It is an act of intergenerational solidarity among teachers, almost 80% of whom voted for strike action. The majority of them are not affected by this but they understand that people must stand together if they are to defeat the Government and achieve equal pay for equal work. Among the unions that have signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement, there is not pay equality. There is still a gap of several thousand euro per year. I have the rates here. Over the course of a career, the gap would result in a pay disparity of over €100,000. Does the Minister admit that there is pay discrimination against new entrants which is not based on any justifiable measure and which relates merely to the fact that they are new entrants? How can the Minister stand over such a situation? It is one of the most shameful acts of the Government. It was also a shameful act on the part of the unions that signed up to it.
I will examine the facts. Under the agreement I negotiated, along with my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, with representatives from the INTO and TUI, significant progress was made in terms of in addressing an issue that mattered to the members of those unions. Let us examine the figures involved, none of which the Deputy acknowledged. The Deputy did not acknowledge that the two unions I mentioned raised the issue with the Government and, as a result of their efforts and negotiations with it, achieved progress for their members. Depending on which point of the scale a teacher is on, the highest increase is €7,700 and the increase at the maximum level is €4,300. Over a teacher's career, these gains will be worth €135,000. This has been achieved through the Lansdowne Road agreement and makes progress towards dealing with the issues the unions identified. In the interests of fairness, the Deputy should acknowledge the progress that is being made.
I do not call it progress when a person who is on a "deal" salary on the first point of the scale will receive €33,000 per year whereas somebody who qualified pre-2011 will receive €39,000. That is a continuation of pay discrimination and it is why it is right that people are fighting against what is happening. The teachers, the Luas workers and the gardaí are showing that if people want to achieve pay restoration and justice, the best way to do so is to engage in struggle and strike action. The Government is preparing to try to recruit people to break the teachers' strike. However, people have seen the example of other workers and understand that this is how to win victories. I do not understand how the Government intends to recruit 1,000 extra nurses into the public health care system while this ongoing pay inequality exists. What will the Government do about it?
I would not expect the Deputy to acknowledge the argument I have made and he has not done so. The progress being made is being achieved by a change in our economic fortunes that the Deputy said would never happen. He claimed that the country would not get to the point where we would be able to make progress on these matters. We have made progress. The Deputy claimed we were recruiting people on strike pay. Due to the progress the Irish people have made and changes introduced in the recent budget, we will be able to hire more than 4,000 more front-line staff next year. Due to the change that has happened, we will be able not only to honour the wage commitments we have with public servants but we will also make progress - that is affordable for the country - in areas that are important to them. However, it is part of the Deputy's ideological agenda to never acknowledge progress on any matter, let alone that what I have outlined is happening through constructive and progressive engagement between reasonable leaders in the union movement and a Government that is doing its best to make progress with the resources available to it.
11. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will report to Dáil Éireann on the proposed public service pay commission; the parameters for such a commission and the timeframe of its work programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31007/16]
View answerI warmly welcome the appointment of Mr. Kevin Duffy as chairman of the public service pay commission. The Minister has published the commission's terms of reference on his website. I would like him to expand on that and tell us the kind of resources he will make available to the commission in terms of the economic and industrial expertise it will need. Does he envisage it having a role similar to that of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, in advising his Department?
The establishment of a public service pay commission to examine pay levels across the public service is a commitment in the confidence-and-supply agreement and programme for partnership Government. In July, the Government agreed, in principle, to the establishment of a public service pay commission. In line with this decision, my Department had to conduct a public consultation about the role and methodology of the commission. In the aftermath, I brought proposals to the Government and they were agreed yesterday. I thank the Deputy for acknowledging the role of Mr. Kevin Duffy in chairing the commission. Mr. Duffy, as a former chairman of the Labour Court, will bring a strong understanding of these matters to his work with the commission. He has been acknowledged as an impartial figure with great expertise in the area.
My plan is to appoint a further six members to the commission in the coming days. The role of the commission will be advisory, particularly as it is not appropriate to outsource to another body negotiations on future pay and conditions of public servants. I expect that the commission will provide an initial report to the Government by the second quarter of next year and the broad terms of reference of the commission, as the Deputy has seen, are to provide input to the Government on how we can deliver the affordable unwinding of the FEMPI legislation. The terms of reference lay out a number of areas in which it can engage regarding: the evolution of pay trends; the comparison of pay trends at home and abroad; and the quality and health of our national finances.
My colleague, Deputy Paul Murphy, referred to the justified case that is being made by my trade union, ASTI, the Garda Síochána, nurses and doctors and a growing list of public service workers who feel that the Government has been very remiss in not just unwinding but getting rid of FEMPI and the whole approach relating thereto. The Minister will be under significant time pressure when he meets the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, which he came before a few weeks ago. He will need to have arrangements in place for both the post-Lansdowne Road agreement era and spending over and above the €300 million he expended this year. There is a time factor. What does the Minister intend to do about pensions? There has been some adverse comment about some of the lump sums in the highly-paid top echelons of the public service and the fact that people in the House have restoration, while the workers to whom I referred, and the other workers, do not have the same restoration.
I acknowledge that we are dealing with some serious challenges in our public services. We must acknowledge that more than 20 unions have signed up to the Lansdowne Road agreement. As a result of this, more than 200,000 civil and public servants are covered by the agreement. While I understand and respect the Deputy's role in raising the issue of those who are outside the Lansdowne Road agreement, I must, in my efforts to deal with the matter, also respect the large number of people who are covered by it. In the initial guidance I provided to the public pay commission, which I look forward to meeting soon, I referenced pensions and asked that they be taken into account in any input it provides to the Government.
The Minister will appoint the six members. I hope that they will be representatives of the trade union movement, industry and the public service in order to provide the kind of background that is required.
What is the Minister's opinion on the cost and continuing work of the body? I referred to the role of IFAC. The Minister is not putting the new body on a statutory basis. Will it continue? It is outside the industrial relations machinery. Has the Minister prioritised for it the aim of getting rid of FEMPI and restoring public service pay, given the fact that our citizens in the public service are generally low paid and bore the brunt of the banking crash? The CPSU trade union has cautiously welcomed the commission's establishment, but it mentioned that we needed to be cognisant of the fact that the cost of living in Ireland was one of the highest in the EU.
Regarding the Deputy's observation on the need for a representative panel on the pay commission, I do not want to put together a group of people whose job it is to represent any individual sector. Were I to do so, I would be undermining the fabric of the organisation. However, I am committed to putting together a panel to assist Mr. Duffy in his work that will be diverse and broadly based. In appointing Mr. Duffy to this body, I hope that I have signalled my intention to put people in place who have a broad-based appreciation of the challenges to which Deputy Broughan referred.
As to the question of the body being on an administrative footing, it is my intention that the commission will be non-statutory. I am cognisant of the timeframe that the Deputy outlined and I want to have the body in place as soon as the consultation process is complete.
The commission is meant to make an input into the unwinding of FEMPI, but that unwinding must take place in a way that is affordable for everyone.
