Barry Cowen
Question:5. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the progress in negotiations on pay equality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29055/18]
View answerTuesday, 3 July 2018
Questions (5)
Oral answers (14 contributions)
On this question on pay equality for new entrants, the Minister said on 17 May that negotiations had begun and that there was a further meeting intended for June. Did that meeting take place? Is agreement close on the matter? Will the Minister assure the House that this remains a priority for Government, that it will not fall off the radar and that it will be provided for within the expenditure and budget package we talked about earlier?
The short answer is yes, it remains a priority for me. Further engagement is taking place on the matter. As to whether it will be included in the budgetary package and budget 2019, there are many different competing demands on it but I am entering into discussions with the union leadership on this matter in good faith to see if we can find some way of dealing with it. We have published a report on this that was a consequence of an amendment to the recent Finance Bill. This report shows that we are continuing to make progress in recruitment in our public service. We have employed more than 60,500 new entrants since 2011, including 16,000 teachers, 10,000 nurses and 5,000 special needs assistants. The report also indicated that a two point adjustment on this matter via the application of increments across the entire public service would cost €200 million and would deliver a benefit to each individual of €3,300 per year. Clearly that cost of €200 million is very significant and my Department is working with the union movement on this to see if there is a way in which this issue could be dealt with.
I welcome the fact that it is a priority. I note that the Minister did not specifically state that he honoured the commitment he gave me in May that he, on behalf of the Government, would meet the unions in June to advance this matter. I am well aware of the report that followed the amendment as proposed by Fianna Fáil on the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. I am well aware of the costs associated with that being implemented in full, but I am also well aware of the commitment the Government gave, in the full knowledge of that, to meet the unions to seek to resolve this issue and allow a recommendation that would be achievable and agreeable to both parties. Irrespective of what that might be I stood aside and allowed that process to proceed and would have supported a resolution on the basis that there was good faith, as the Minister rightly said, and on the basis that the priority would be honoured, as the Minister alluded to.
I ask the Minister again if they met in June and if he is committed to resolving this issue prior to the budgetary package being agreed, irrespective of what that might entail or what implementation it would require within that budgetary package, whether it is in a full-year term or a two to three-year term, but ultimately a decision and agreement that would be reached between both parties.
Yes, we did meet in June. My Department has met the unions on the matter across June and before then. The Deputy asked me if I am committed to dealing with the matter in budget 2019 and he went on to ask if this would be irrespective of how it would be implemented or the costs involved. I cannot give that commitment irrespective of costs or implementation, as the Deputy knows, but as I have said, I am approaching the matter in good faith as I have approached many other issues of pay in our public services. I am engaging with the unions on it but I also have an array of other competing demands from the Exchequer at the moment and I have to see if this can all be put into a single framework to pass the third budget which I am committed to passing.
Of course the Minister has the responsibility to ensure that the requirements of competing interests are met in how he presents a budget that this House might support. There is no problem whatsoever with that and there are underlying issues associated with that budget which we spoke about three years ago that we would expect to see as part of that.
I simply say to the Minister that when we put that amendment forward, it was done to honour a commitment that was made within that same agreement that provided for three budgets. That agreement was that this Government would seek to address the pay inequality for new entrants within the public service. The amendment to the legislation put a report in place that laid out clearly the costs associated with achieving that goal. The Government then entered into negotiations on good faith on foot of what was contained within that report on the understanding that agreement would be reached between both parties prior to the budget, irrespective of what might be contained within the budget.
Of course the Minister has a duty and an obligation to ensure that competing interests are met.
The Minister has an obligation and a duty too to recognise the commitments and the obligations and the agreements that have been reached between parties relevant to the issues I have mentioned.
On the one hand the Deputy acknowledges that I have an obligation to make sure that everything adds up and fits into the same framework-----
It is the duty of Government and it is the job the Minister has.
-----and on the other he is asking me to give a commitment today, irrespective of cost or how we might implement it.
Not irrespective of cost.
I cannot do that. I have to continue to engage with the union movement on the matter to see if an affordable resolution can be reached. While the Deputy is correct to point to the fact that this was a commitment contained in the supply and confidence agreement that reflected the faith I have in seeing whether we can make progress in the matter. In addition to that, the commitment was there to see how could unwind financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation for all who work in our public service and Civil Service and provide a framework by which they can gradually and affordably get their money back, and we did that. I did that.
The Minister accepted an amendment on the day that he did that.
It was enormously complicated legislation and an enormously intricate negotiation and despite the expectations and the prophesies of many that we would not be able to get that agreement, that was achieved.
That did not come from us.
I will continue to work now on the new entrant part in the way I have identified.