Priority Questions
1. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether it is necessary to re-examine the figures in the context of the provision of €300 million in 2017 and 2018; his strategy for the succession for the Lansdowne Road agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36753/16]
View answerWill the Minister outline his proposals for a successor agreement to the Lansdowne Road agreement? The negotiations for such an agreement will have to get under way in any event in early 2017 to be ready for budget 2018. Will the Minister have to re-examine the figures for the agreement for the 2017 and 2018 budgets?
The Lansdowne Road agreement is a collective agreement between the Government and public service employers with the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and other associations representing public servants. The agreement provides for a sustainable adjustment of the existing measures under the financial emergency measures legislation. The terms of the Lansdowne Road agreement have been implemented through the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2015.
The estimated cost of the implementation of the Lansdowne Road agreement is €267 million in 2016, €290 million in 2017, €287 million in 2018 or a cumulative €844 million out to 2018. In addition, the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2015 also makes provision for an adjustment in the rates of reduction applied to public service pensions in payment at an additional cost of €30 million in each of the years 2016 to 2018. I have no plans to revisit these estimates.
A successor collective agreement to the Lansdowne Road agreement needs to be negotiated. I have already outlined, prior to recent events, the timeframe for that. The public service pay commission has been tasked with providing an initial report to the Government on public service remuneration in the context of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009 and 2015. The findings of the commission will contribute to and inform the Government's considerations of public service remuneration. It will also inform public service employers in negotiations with staff interests on a successor to the Lansdowne Road agreement. The commission will report in the second quarter of 2017.
There have been statements from the other party to the Lansdowne Road agreement, the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, that it wants to see a successor agreement move further. I understand it has given the Minister some space to work on proposals. Will he outline what contacts he has had with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions? Has it tabled any formal proposals around pay for 2017 which may require additional resources from any Department?
I have met the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on one occasion since the issuing of the Labour Court recommendation. My officials have been in contact with the representatives and met them on at least two occasions since. With regard to the discussions, the representatives have made two key points publicly. They have said they want the kinds of benefit that were conferred under the Labour Court recommendation. They want comparable benefits for their members. They have said they want accelerated negotiations on wage restoration, leading to a faster pace of restoration in the future. They have been very clear publicly on these matters.
Were their proposals to be implemented, how much would it cost per month in 2017? A catalyst for much of this was the recommendation of the Labour Court in the dispute involving An Garda Síochána. The Minister and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, have indicated that it will cost some €50 million to implement. Has the Government outlined from where that money will come? Will it come from within existing Estimates, or does the Minister anticipate a Supplementary Estimate, either from the Department of Justice and Equality, his own Department or some other part of government, bearing in mind that if the Labour Court recommendation on Garda pay has been accepted, the money will have to be paid from January, in six weeks' time? We need to make some sense of this now.
What was the Deputy's first question?
How much would the ICTU proposals cost to implement?
All of the discussions to date have been on processes concerning the future of the Lansdowne Road agreement. I am not in a position to give the Deputy a cost or a proposal ICTU might make to me in the future. Overall, the cost of any adjustment to the Lansdowne Road agreement per month is between €25 million and €35 million.
On the Deputy's questions about An Garda Síochána and how the pay increase will be paid for, I will work on the matter with the Minister for Justice and Equality across 2017. I am awaiting the result of the ballot that is due in a week's time. In its aftermath, we will engage on the issues the Deputy is raising with me. Obviously, the result of the ballot will have a fundamental effect on the cost and what might need to be paid for.
On the Labour Court recommendation, I have one broad point. There appeared to be consensus within the House. The triggering of the WRC and the Labour Court to deal with these issues was the correct approach. They became involved because they were independent bodies. Had the Government decided it would not accept such a recommendation, it would have caused great difficulties in the management of industrial relations in the future. I acknowledge that accepting the recommendation has created a different set of consequences which the Deputy is raising with me.
2. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is committed to equal work for equal pay for post-2011 entrants within the public sector; and if he will provide a roadmap for equal work for equal pay, in addition to the fair and timely restoration of the FEMPI legislation cuts for those public sector workers earning under €65,000. [36600/16]
View answerThe question seeks to have the Minister state formally and publicly that he is committed to equal work for equal pay for post-2011 entrants within the public sector and to provide a roadmap for equal work for equal pay, in addition to the fair and timely reversal of the FEMPI legislation cuts for those public sector workers earning under €65,000.
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. Terms and conditions of employment for public servants are also set by reference to legislation, including the FEMPI Acts, and through negotiation and agreement under collective agreements such as the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road agreements.
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. Any further consideration of remuneration adjustment for any group of public servants, including issues relating to more recently recruited public servants, falls to be examined within the provisions of the Lansdowne Road agreement. The agreement is flexible enough to address particular sectoral issues such as the restoration of supervision and substitution payments and new entrant payments in the education sector and the restoration of rent allowances for new entrant firefighters and members of An Garda Síochána.
On the unwinding of FEMPI legislation measures for those earning under €65,000, the Deputy will be aware, I hope, that the application of the FEMPI legislation pay reductions was extremely progressive, with pay reductions ranging from 5% at lower pay levels to 29% at higher pay levels. Again, the measures applied under the phased unwinding of the FEMPI legislation reductions through the Lansdowne Road agreement were also progressive. It provided the greatest benefit at the fastest pace for lower paid public servants. For example, it exclusively targeted those earning under €65,000 for increases in pay, ranging from €1,500 for those earning €20,000 to €1,000 for those earning €60,000. It utilised increases in the exemption threshold of the pension related deduction to maximise the benefit to low-paid workers. All statutory deductions, other than tax, are made before the pension related deduction is taken from salary; therefore, a reduction of an amount in pension related deduction will benefit the employee to that amount, less PAYE. For a person on the 20% tax rate, a €100 reduction in pension related deduction gives a benefit of €80.
The Minister has stated the FEMPI legislation has been a success. Certainly, it has not been successful for the vast majority of low and middle income public servants. That is the crux of my point. The simple fact is that the Government has no plans whatsoever to address the issues beyond the diverse sectoral agreements with certain unions already within the Lansdowne Road agreement. There are certainly no commitments from it to allow for pay equality across the public sector. Given the rise in the level of industrial action to date which we see across the State, it is not tenable to commence the process only in two years, in September 2018, at the expiry of the Lansdowne Road agreement.
Separate from this is the issue of pay restoration. The core of my question is about equality. This has been put to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and now the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Will he commit to equal pay for equal work for post-2011 entrants?
I take seriously what unions state about matters. Let me quote a union leader who spoke about this matter:
Teachers are feeling they are being taken for granted, that their goodwill is being exploited and that in the face of ever increasing workloads they are holding together a system which is underfunded and under-resourced. None of this is being recognised.
This was said by the INTO's Northern secretary, Mr. Gerry Murphy, while speaking about the payment of teachers under the Northern Ireland Executive. In case the Deputy is not aware of the figures, the entrance salary for teachers in Northern Ireland is €25,000. For teachers here it is €30,000. In the light of all this and the issues teachers in Northern Ireland are facing, under a portfolio for which the Deputy's party recently had responsibility, how can he come into the House and challenge me on the progress that has been made on issues such as this?
He is entitled to do so, but how can he do so with credibility? One of his party's spokespersons urged "all parties to get back around the table in an effort to reach a resolution to the issue of teachers' pay". If that is the language that Sinn Féin is using elsewhere, would it not be appropriate to use the same here?
I will not even engage in the red herring of comparisons with a different state. The Minister does not care about the people of the Six Counties, yet he uses them as a false argument to try to tarnish Sinn Féin. It is impossible to compare like with like in that context. For the Minister to simplify the issue says a great deal about him.
The Minister has failed to answer my question, which has been put repeatedly to the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and him. It goes to the core of equality. The Minister cannot grasp this simple issue. As he mentioned teachers, I will mention nurses, gardaí and the fact that public servants have experienced large pay cuts. There is an unjust two-tiered system for post-2011 entrants. My daughter graduated as a primary school teacher and was expected to work alongside colleagues who may have graduated the year before. She has had to emigrate as a result of the inequality that the Government has built into the system.
That shows the difference in approach to politics between the Deputy and me. I legitimately respond with facts about what is happening elsewhere-----
False arguments. The Minister is not comparing like with like.
-----but the Deputy's best retort is a mixture of interruptions and allegations that I do not care.
That is not the point. Sign up to equality.
Sinn Féin does not have a monopoly of caring about issues of equality and fairness. The Deputy does not have a monopoly of caring about issues-----
Stop running down the clock and answer the question. Will the Minister sign-----
One speaker, Deputy.
-----that people within public services have to face and of the desire to do so fairly. Of course, I care about fairness. Of course, I want to deliver equality-----
Commit to equality, then.
-----but I also have a duty to deal with other issues, such as how to fund and provide the kind of housing that Sinn Féin constantly and correctly highlights in the Chamber and how to put in place the kind of funding that we need to support our hospitals and primary care centres. These are also issues of equality and fairness. All of it must be funded out of the money that is available to the State.
The Minister has failed to sign up to the basic principle of equality.
I can make these points and put that argument to Sinn Féin and the Deputy while recognising a presumption of good faith on his behalf. It is just a pity that Sinn Féin cannot do the same for others.
3. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the budget that has been assigned to the public service pay commission, PSPC; if he will provide its final terms of reference and its proposed timeline; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36521/16]
View answerThe PSPC was a part of last May's confidence and supply agreement, but we could not have anticipated the serious situation facing us now. Its role is even more important. What are its budget and terms of reference? What is the timeline for its work and has that timeline been reviewed in light of the current uncertainty around public service pay?
On 18 October at the conclusion of a period of consultation with stakeholders in the Lansdowne Road agreement, the Government approved the establishment of the PSPC to advise it on public service pay. For its initial report, the commission will be asked to consider the evolution of pay trends in the public and private sectors based on published data and a comparison of pay rates for identifiable groups within the public service with prevailing non-public sector market rates and international rates, having due regard to the national finances.
In reaching its findings, the commission should also have regard to the superannuation and other benefits applying in the public service; security of tenure where it applies; pay comparisons taking account of relevant characteristics; the reform agenda; evidence on recruitment and retention within the public service; other relevant matters, including impact on national competitiveness and the sustainability of the national finances; and any other issue determined by the Government. The PSPC is due to publish its first report in the second quarter of next year.
Details of the PSPC's budget will be set out soon in the Revised Estimates Volume and will fall under the Vote for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. While the commission will provide valuable inputs into the negotiation process, the Government and representatives of employees will retain their right to negotiate directly with one another. Having met the commission on Monday, I am even more certain of the valuable work that it will do.
I do not doubt the value of that work. There will be experienced heads around the table and that experience is needed now more than ever. When the Minister met the commission on Monday, did he discuss the current situation with it and seek advice based on its members' experiences in the private and public sectors as to how he might steer through this situation?
The timeline is admirable, but the train is about to leave the station and the PSPC might be left behind. Given the experience of its members and their ability to do deals and manage situations, it would be a shame if they remained apart from the current challenges facing the Minister. He should use their experience and views.
Regarding what the Minister wants the commission to do, the second quarter is any time between now and the end of June 2017. He then expects to move into a budgetary discussion and a negotiation with the unions ahead of budget 2018. It is an ambitious timescale, particularly given the external pressures. Does he expect the timescale to be maintained? What timescale does he anticipate for pay talks with the unions?
We could not have a discussion with the commission without a recognition of the context in which we find ourselves, but I did not raise the matter with it directly because it was never envisaged that the pay commission would deal with issues in the Lansdowne Road agreement. Its terms of reference relate to what will happen after that agreement and the future sustainability of public pay.
As to whether I asked its members for advice, I am not lacking for advice. The challenge is working with everyone to chart a way forward.
I thank the Deputy for his comments on the commission's experience. We have appointed a good group with a mixture of skills and experiences that will serve the State well.
The timescale will be the second quarter, but I will not confirm anything further at this point because I must hold additional discussions with the commission. It will be a demanding schedule, but I first had to undergo a period of consultation to get the commission established before then selecting a panel that would be acceptable to all and recognised in the way that the Deputy has just done.
I do not deny that the Minister is not lacking in advice, but what he does with it and who is giving it seem to be the problem.
I was intrigued by a comment made by the president of SIPTU, Mr. Jack O'Connor, when he was issuing various threats to the Minister that he did not know anything about the PSPC. The commission formed part of the confidence and supply agreement, and one of the reasons for delay in establishing it was the need for the Minister to consult various players in a public process. Did SIPTU involve itself in that public consultation process on the establishment of the PSPC? Has the Minister plans to review the commission's terms of reference in the light of the uncertainty surrounding public service pay?
I have no plans to review the terms of reference. As to SIPTU's role, parties to the Lansdowne Road agreement were required to have the opportunity to consult and give their views on the pay commission, which took up a fair bit of the summer period.
I do not know whether Mr. O'Connor is aware of it; I will not comment on that. Everybody was given an opportunity to give their input into the process. If there had not been a need for such a period, this body might have been set up a little quicker but I did need to go through a consultation period, which I wanted to do, because there would be no point putting in place a mechanism which would then be undermined by people who might use it as an input. It is now clear that if people were not aware of it then, everybody is certainly fully aware of it now. I am certain the role it will play will be in the aftermath of where we are now. Where we are now is a matter for the Government and for those who represent employees or who work in various public services. It is for that reason that we are engaging with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
will the Minister confirm that a replacement has been appointed for Oonagh Buckley who did great work in the Department and is now heading up the Workplace Relations Commission? That post holder will, effectively, be the lead civil servant in charge of the public service.
Yes, I can. A person has just been appointed and he and his team will play the lead role in the discussions to which the Deputy referred, with me, the Secretary General of my Department and the senior team there. I will be happy to confirm the details to the Deputy later.
5. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the Lansdowne Road agreement, dealing with pay restoration for public service workers, is now unsustainable; and his further views on whether it is urgent that the Government sets a date for talks with trade unions representing public sector workers early in 2017 to discuss a new agreement to replace the Lansdowne Road agreement. [36599/16]
View answerI wish to ask the Minister his views on whether the Lansdowne Road agreement, dealing with pay restoration for public service workers, is now unsustainable, and his further views on whether it is urgent that the Government sets a date for talks with trade unions representing public sector workers early in 2017 to discuss a new agreement to replace the Lansdowne Road agreement.
The Government strongly supports the Lansdowne Road agreement, LRA, as the centrepiece of public pay policy, noting that the Labour Court's recommendation was explicitly made within that framework. However, the wider implications of the recommendation in regard to the continued operation of the Lansdowne Road agreement as it applies to all public servants across the public service are under careful consideration and assessment by Government. In that regard, I met with ICTU representatives on 7 November last to get an early input to those considerations by Government from the public services committee of ICTU in terms of the views of the constituent unions.
Senior officials within my Department also met with the public services committee of ICTU where both sides reiterated their commitment to a continued collective approach. It was also agreed that those issues arising in regard to the terms of the Lansdowne Road agreement could be more appropriately dealt with by the parties under the relevant provisions of the Lansdowne Road agreement. In this regard both parties agreed to remain in ongoing contact over the coming weeks on this matter.
The Government will continue to engage as necessary through public service management with the public services committee of ICTU and other representative bodies, under the oversight and governance arrangements provided within the Lansdowne Road agreement. The provisions of the LRA provide a mechanism to address issues that arise in relation to the agreement. It is incumbent on the parties to the agreement to utilise the mechanisms to address issues that arise in relation to that agreement.
The Minister made the point earlier that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made it very clear that there are two points it wants to deal with. The first is the acceleration of negotiations on pay restoration. That comes on foot of the Labour Court award to the Garda. Nearly everybody now takes the view, although the Government is not saying it, that the Lansdowne Road agreement is unsustainable. It will simply not hold at a time when public sector workers see another group of workers gain a pay increase following a Labour Court recommendation. The former group of workers has gone through the same austerity and the same situation and now they find themselves falling behind another group of workers. That is not acceptable. I do not think those workers will accept it because it is not on. Should the Government now accept the inevitable and set the date for proper talks with the public sector unions? The talks at the moment appear to be tentative. Does the Minister agree that along with a shorter timetable for full pay restoration for workers earning less than €65,000 a year, the question of equal pay, which has already been raised, should be dealt with as an urgent and immediate issue?
I have already outlined what the timeframe is for discussions on the future of public pay in this country, in response to questions from Deputy Dara Calleary and others. I also spoke about what will happen in the aftermath of the Lansdowne Road agreement, what a successor agreement could look like, and the timings and processes we need to do this.
The simple challenge we face is affordability. The saving to the State of, for example, all of the FEMPI legislation earnings that are currently not available to public and civil servants is €1.4 billion every year. The only way in which we can make progress on these matters is by doing so in a way that is affordable to everybody. Deputy Joan Collins has raised, as did Deputy John Brady earlier, the issue of pay for new entrants. We have made progress on the issue but we must do so in tandem with making progress on other matters, for example, the issues the Deputy raises in the House every week. That is what the Government is seeking to do.
The Minister talked about affordability. I am taking about people who are members of unions who work in hospitals, schools, ambulance services and other public services. The issue of affordability for them relates to how they can continue to pay their way in society. Many of them have suffered huge cuts to their wages and household members have lost jobs. In spite of that they are still paying the same mortgage they were paying eight years ago. Rents are increasing, as are transport costs. It is becoming very difficult for people to live and some even face evictions from their homes. How can one ask those workers to accept the argument on affordability when they see bank CEOs getting increases and Deputies getting a €5,000 increase in their wages? There is no fairness in that and those workers will not accept it. SIPTU has spoken of its plans to ballot 60,000 public sector members in the new year on the situation. The Government will have to take the bull by the horns and enter negotiations in order to move things on.
I am interested to hear what the Deputy's attitude was to the signing of the Lansdowne Road agreement. Did she welcome it?
Deputy Collins is now criticising the Government because she perceives that an agreement she did not welcome at the time is no longer in action. The Deputy cannot have her cake and eat it on this matter.
The agreement cannot be in action.
The Minister should be allowed to reply without interruption.
This is an agreement that she criticised at the time and now that it is her view that it is no longer in place - a view with which I completely disagree given, for example, that the Labour Court recommendation was made inside the framework of the Lansdowne Road agreement - she cannot then criticise the Government for an agreement that she herself is against. That is the challenge Deputy Joan Collins and her colleagues face, who are raising this issue at the moment.
In recent weeks and months Deputy Joan Collins called for the abolition of water charges and an end to the private collection of waste and for the State to play a larger role in that regard. She called for an increase in the public transport subvention in light of existing industrial relations difficulties. The list goes on. She is calling for all of those things to happen but the question is how we do all of that and how we can pay for it. As I said to Deputy John Brady earlier, I am fully aware of the challenges people face, whom I am privileged to represent. I am as aware of the situation as Deputy Joan Collins. She does not have a monopoly on making that point. However, it falls to me and the Government to try to find a way of making progress in these matters in a way that is affordable and fair for everybody.
The Minister made points about the North. I am not a member of Sinn Féin but what is happening in Ireland and throughout Europe is a consequence of the neoliberal agenda governments across Europe have recently followed.
We are going to see a winter of discontent next year on the part of workers. A group of workers has been given an award through the Labour Court, while other workers are told to sit back and wait when they cannot afford to wait and are finding it difficult to survive. The Minister challenged me about the Lansdowne Road agreement. There are plenty of things one can oppose. I would have voted against the Lansdowne Road agreement if I was in the public service. If I was a worker now, I would not accept that a group of workers gets an award better than that offered to me, so I would want to get out of the agreement. Two unions did not enter the Lansdowne Road agreement. We could have a debate about ideology or where we come from in respect of international global capitalism and the protection of that force by certain Governments. At the end of the day, workers are suffering from it.
I reiterate that I am absolutely aware of the challenges people face in their daily lives. I know the role that wage growth and increases in wages can play in alleviating that burden. I want to see this happen in the economy and society but in a way that is affordable and sustainable for everybody. I appreciate the Deputy's candour about the Lansdowne Road agreement. At least she is clear about her inconsistency. She is saying she would have voted against the Lansdowne Road agreement but she is now making the case, with which I disagree completely, that the very agreement she would have voted against is in difficulty and that she believes this to be a bad thing.
I never raised the issue of Northern Ireland with the Deputy, although I did raise it with Deputy John Brady earlier. I am not getting into a debate about the benefits or otherwise of neoliberalism. I am not a neoliberal. I am against the kind of policies that have caused such difficulty in other parts of the world. I am in favour of putting together policies that are affordable to make sure we do not go back into the cycle of wage increases tomorrow we find we cannot afford the day after that end up being wage cuts that cause chaos for families. I do not want to see that happen. I believe the Lansdowne Road agreement and my acknowledgement of the consequences of the Labour Court recommendation for public service workers make up the framework within which we will address this.
