Deputy Ring has given way to Deputy Ulick Burke and he will share his time with Deputy Perry.
Private Members' Business. - Public Service Pensions: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Quinn on Tuesday, 21 October 1997:
That Dáil Éireann, bearing in mind the long established principle, first adopted by the Government in 1969 and confirmed to this House repeatedly since then, that public service pensions should be related to current rates of pay, considering that recently negotiated increases in public sector pay should therefore be reflected by proportionate increases in the pensions paid to already retired employees, and recalling the pledge of the Government parties outlined in the Action Programme for the Millennium to protect public service pensions, calls on the Government to implement improvements to the pension entitlements of retired nurses, teachers, gardaí, civil servants and employees of local authorities and health boards, in order to re-establish parity with increases obtained by serving employees under recent pay agreements.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, recalling the pledge of the Government parties outlined in An Action Programme for the Millennium to protect public service pensions, notes that it is the intention of the Government to honour this commitment. Accordingly, the manner in which this commitment will be implemented is being considered in the course of the current Estimates/budgetary process."
—(Minister for Finance).
I thank the Labour Party for sharing its time so generously. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Like many Members, I am appalled the Government has yet again made a U-turn on a commitment given by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on 4 June during the general election campaign to grant parity to public service pensioners. It should be easy for the Minister for Finance to honour that commitment in view of that election promise. However, honour has been scarce during the past few weeks.
It is wrong to refuse parity to public service pensioners. They comprise teachers, nursing staff, health board and local authority workers. All have paid their 6.5 per cent contribution to their pensions. The tactics adopted by the Department of Finance in this matter are wrong and unjust. It is also wrong to include this issue in the context of the long-term obligation to public service pensions. Today's Irish Independent quoted the Minister for Finance as saying that a pension bill of £1.7 billion today will mean a bill of £11 billion by the year 2036. This figure misrepresents the reality and must be corrected by the Minister. The percentage of GDP paid now is greater than it will be in the year 2036. Last night the Minister listed percentages and figures but they do not represent the real situation and are, as was said in another context, “lies, damned lies and statistics”.
There is no economic reason to cut pensions as envisaged. An average Civil Service pension in 1993 was £115 per week, a little more than the social welfare contributory pension. Are we asking public service pensioners of the future to accept a pension that will put them on the poverty line? Is it a means of getting rid of them? Sometimes I wonder. There has been a grand plan since 1987 on the part of the Department of Finance to bring about a reduction of the State contribution towards pension funds. We are entitled to those pensions because we contributed 6.5 per cent of our income to them in the past. As a result of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, teachers with allowances for posts with responsibility will lose £750 per annum. A principal teacher in a 30 teacher school could lose £2,750 per annum as a result of the scheme designed by the Minister for Finance. That is not and cannot be acceptable. There is the same pro rata impact on all other pensioners in the scheme.
It is unfair to deny parity to people who have given so loyally to the State throughout the various sectors of our community, often in difficult circumstances. We have not heard the last of this matter. I will, with my colleagues, do whatever is necessary to ensure this plan of the Department of Finance does not proceed. Are we to call the current Minister for Finance the Scrooge of the new millenium and compare him with a previous Minister, often spoken of by the Fianna Fáil party, who reduced old age pensions? It would be unfair to the Minister to do that but it will happen if he continues on this road. I ask the Minister to grant parity now and not to prolong implementation by asking a commission to examine it.
Parity in public service pensions has been established since 1969. Ministers for Finance have affirmed that custom in their Budget Statements of 1972, 1984 and 1986. When a public servant, nurse, teacher or local authority official entered the public service he or she paid a pension contribution of 6.5 per cent on the firm understanding that parity would continue to give a pro rata increase in their pensions on retirement in line with increases to serving workers. Now the pensioners have learned this is not so. A postprimary teacher will lose on average £1,250 per annum if parity is breached. Spouses on half pension are even worse off.
A report prepared by the management and services unit of the Department of Finance in 1993 revealed that 70 per cent of Civil Service pensioners had pensions of less than £500 per month or £115 per week. The Scott report in 1981 said it was highly desirable that the standards of living of those in retirement should be protected. This principle is recognised in countries such as France and Germany.
There is no economic basis for reducing public service pensions. The projected pension fund, cashflow and assets as a percentage of GDP will improve from 46 per cent in 1996 to 115 per cent in the year 2036. The Government, in a statement on 4 June, committed itself to maintaining the standard of living of public service pensioners relative to serving officers. Public service pensioners have a legitimate expectation that parity of pensions should be respected. No attempt should, therefore, be made to modify the State's obligation to maintain parity of pensions.
I ask the Minister for Finance to honour the pledge to restore parity to the former nurses, teachers, gardaí and local authority and health board workers. They have served the State well. A resolution of the European Parliament on 24 February 1994, states that national governments should refrain from applying measures to reduce benefits in pension schemes. Let us not let our public service down.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Power and Deputy Brian Lenihan.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the fact that the Government parties will honour their commitment to protect public service pensions as outlined in the Action Programme for the Millenium.
The retired pensioners were justifiably angry when they held their rally outside the Dáil two weeks ago. They were angry with all politicians but particularly with the previous Government and the lack of action on the part of the former Minister for Finance. When I met the retired nurses outside the Dáil they spoke about the unique position of nurses which was confirmed earlier this year when they almost went on strike. The Labour Court decided nurses were in a unique position with regard to their pay and working conditions. The retired nurses and I found it hard to understand why retired nurses are not regarded as having a unique position.
They were not the only retired public servants who felt aggrieved. The retired pensioners are particularly aggrieved that benefits do not apply to public servants who retired prior to 1 June 1996. What consultations and negotiations did the previous Minister conduct about parity of pensions and what negotiations, if any, did he conduct with the retired public servants? The retired pensioners I met outside the Dáil two weeks ago were annoyed at all the discussion about payments to politicians and tribunals that follow the money trail, while they felt discriminated against and let down.
We must emphasise the principle of parity. The pensions parity principle of increasing public service occupational pensions in line with pay was agreed in 1969. It was phased in over three years to 1972. In the 1984 budget it was announced that general pay increases would apply to pensioners with effect from the date of the increases. The 1986 budget extended full pension parity to special increases with effect from 1 July 1986.
Over the past decade parity has been applied on the basis that pensioners would continue to have their pensions related to the salaries they would have had if they had continued to serve. In fact, there was a time when pension increases were paid some time after general pay increases.
We must examine what would arise if traditional parity applied and what the impact would be on various pensioners' groups. Many of the deals concentrated increases on the pay scale, whereas others concentrated some or much of the increases on non scale improvements. Some deals were worth substantially more than others. Consequently, if parity as currently understood was applied a substantial number of pensioners would get increases of the order of 15 per cent with others getting 7 or 8 per cent. At the other extreme, substantial numbers of pensioners would either get no increase at all or would benefit only from the 1 per cent advance pay increase paid to some groups with effect from 1 April 1994.
The Department of Finance has had a series of meetings with the public services committee of congress and the Retired Civil and Public Servants' association. The predominant demand of these parties was for the retention of parity but with some provision for groups who would not benefit from parity. The congress group's agreed position is parity with a floor of 3 per cent. In effect, while it is most anxious to maintain the principle of parity for the future, it seeks a minimum level of increase for pensioners who would not otherwise benefit, or would benefit only marginally, from the PCW deals. The effect of the latter would add substantially to the cost of public sector pensions, particularly if future special pay increases were modelled on the PCW restructuring deals or based on increases in productivity or pay-related performance.
During the recent general election campaign pension increases for public servants became a live issue. The joint Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats press statement of 4 June 1997 said "in Government we will resolve the problems surrounding the pensions of retired public service staff and we are committed to restoring the link between pensions and increases in current rates of public sector pay".
(Carlow-Kilkenny): When?
The Government's joint programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium, states that key priorities will include "protection of public service pensions". It is mentioned in tonight's motion.
The general issue of pension increases is among those being considered by the Commission on Public Service Pensions. The commission's preliminary view is that pensions should be increased to provide a fair and secure level of retirement income to pensioners. The commission suggests that three principal pension increase options are available: in line with pay, in line with the consumer priced index or in line with some other index appropriate to pensioners. The commission will consider each of these in its final report.
We are told the cost of public service pensions will increase from £540 million in 1995 to £2.2 billion in the year 2025. This represents a fourfold increase over a 30 year period and these figures are based on conservative assumptions.
The system of parity cannot be changed. From 1 July increases due under Partnership 2000 have been applied to pensioners and further increases due under that agreement will also be applied. The Government has been dealing with the matter since June and despite the fact that deals have been in negotiation for a number of years, the previous Government did not finalise the matter.
Congress has been involved in trying to resolve this. The bottom line sought by Congress would represent a significant improvement in the existing system of parity. The groups of retired public servants have received benefit from the parity principle. They have already received the 1 July increase and will get further increases due under Partnership 2000.
This has been a frustrating time for retired public servants. It is only from a sense of frustration that they came to the Dáil on 8 October to meet Deputies and Senators. They were sincere when they made it clear they would return for a similar rally if they are not successful in obtaining the significant benefits to which they are entitled. I call on the Minister to sort out the manner in which the Government's commitment will be implemented. I also call on him to meet the retired public servants and assure them they will not be forgotten and will receive their full pension entitlements.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Lenihan.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
We are lucky to have so many experts in this House. No matter what the problem is we will always have a supply of people with the right answers. The more complicated the problem the more certain we can be that someone will come up with a simple solution. We can equally be guaranteed that such a solution will not work. That is obvious given the contributions from the Opposition both yesterday and today. The problem of public service pensions is a complicated one that requires serious study before a final decision is made. Pension increases for public servants became a major issue during the recent general election campaign. Even though we all acknowledge it was also a big issue before the election, it received much attention during the campaign.
Before the election both Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats issued a statement saying that "in Government we will resolve the problems surrounding the pensions of retired public service staff and we are committed to restoring the link between pensions and increases in current rates of public sector pay".
In the programme for Government, which was published after the election, we stated that the protection of public service pensions would be treated as a priority. That is as true today as when the Programme for Government was agreed. This matter is being watched closely by many people and a number of them have been in touch with me to express their concern at the lack of progress. This problem, however, is not one that has just arisen. It was an issue during the term of the Rainbow Government but no real action was taken to solve it.
The Labour Party has only just left office and it might not be back for a good while. However, more than any other party, it should be aware of the complexities involved. Since this Fianna Fáil led Government took office the matter is being dealt with and we can show those concerned that we want to put in place a secure and fair level of retirement income for public service pensioners.
Fianna Fáil will honour the commitment given to the people before the general election. The Minister summed it up well yesterday when he said "the question at issue is how to apply the restructuring deals negotiated under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work to pensioners”. In dealing with this question it is vital that serious consideration be given to the increased costs that will emerge later. The growing concern over the emerging costs of existing public service pension terms is understandable when one looks at the projected figures. It is expected the cost of public service occupational pensions will increase from £540 million in 1995 to £2.2 billion in 30 years time.
We have witnessed many changes in the public service during the past 20 years. Some of these changes were introduced with little regard to the long-term costs. The major recruitment which took place during the late l970s will result in an increased number of retirements in 25 years. The Commission on Public Service Pensions recently submitted an interim report to the Minister for Finance. It would be helpful if that report were made available to us. The commission identified some of the contributing factors to the growth in Exchequer pensions costs, for example, the increase in the number of female public servants who will qualify for a pension. The fact that people are living longer means pensions will have to be paid over a longer period.
The pensions parity principle was agreed in l969. This meant public service occupational pensions were increased in line with pay. It was decided in the l984 budget that general pay increases would apply to pensions with effect from the date of the increases. The l986 budget extended full pension parity to special increases with effect from 1 July of that year. During the past ten years parity has been applied on the basis that pensioners will continue to have their pensions related to the salaries they would receive if they were employed.
The Minister said that the restructuring deals negotiated under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work do not fit comfortably within the traditional pattern of special pay increases. In most cases the deals were negotiated under option A of the restructuring clause in the PCW. This requires “changes in structures, work practices or other conditions of service” and “must have regard to the need for flexibility and change and the contribution to be made by employees to such change and must result in savings and an improved quality of public service”. Alternatively option B allows a single cost increasing claim for an amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the basic pay cost which would take into account the need for efficiency, flexibility and change and the contribution to be made by employees to such change.
The Minister said that the various option A deals differ widely in their structure and, as a result, if traditional parity applied the effect on public service pensioner groups would be very different. Many of the deals concentrated increases on the pay scale while others concentrated much of the increases on non-scale improvements. Some deals are worth substantially more than others and it is obvious that the system is neither fair nor equitable and needs to be changed.
The Department of Finance held meetings with the public services committee of congress and the Retired Civil and Public Servants Association. These parties have requested the retention of parity but with provision for groups which would not benefit from it. The congress group's agreed position is parity with a floor of 3 per cent. It is very anxious to maintain the principle of parity for the future and is seeking an increase for pensioners who would not otherwise benefit from PCW deals.
Ireland is not the only country which faces a major increase in the cost of pensions. Many of our European colleagues have had to deal with a similar problem. In an effort to reduce the overall cost to the State some countries have increased the retirement age for public servants. While we can learn lessons from the experiences of these countries, any move to increase the retirement age for public servants should be knocked on the head. We still have a very serious unemployment problem and every assistance must be given to unemployed people to find employment.
The Minister for Finance will introduce the budget in a few weeks. The old age contributory pension was increased by £3 from £75 to £78 in the last budget. However, this increase did not come into effect until 1 July. It is begrudging of Governments not to give immediate effect to pension increases. Successive Ministers, including Fianna Fáil Ministers, have operated this system for many years. Increases in beer, fuel and cigarettes announced in the budget come into effect at midnight on budget day and there is no reason social welfare increases should not come into effect at the same time or within a week or two. Pensioners should not have to wait for six months to enjoy the benefit of the increase in their pension.
The escalating cost of pensions is a serious problem which must be addressed. The pay-asyou-go system is no longer the way to deal with the issue. Further pension liabilities must be identified and advance funding put in place to deal with the issue. This is a very complex area which requires much examination. I hope the Minister avails of the opportunity in the forthcoming budget to address the fears of the people concerned.
I welcome the Labour Party motion in so far as it gives us an opportunity to debate public service pensions. The distress and upset caused to pensioners who gave a lifetime of public service to the State was obvious during the general election campaign. I am glad the Minister proposes to amend the motion as follows:
That Dáil Éireann, recalling the pledge of the Government parties outlined in An Action Programme for the Millennium to protect public service pensions, notes that it is the intention of the Government to honour this commitment. Accordingly, the manner in which this commitment will be implemented is being considered in the course of the current Estimatesbudgetary process.
The Labour Party was in Government with Democratic Left and Fine Gael when the Programme for Competitiveness and Work was negotiated and it is very much their programme. Part of their manifesto was that the PCW would be presented to the people as a kind of final instalment of advantage prior to the election. Yet they failed to provide in the programme for the very circumstance we are obliged to consider in the House this evening.
The programme provided for new restructuring options within the public service. A key part of this was the creation of a new option in relation to structural adjustments, special pay increases and productivity improvements in the public service. There was no difficulty with the old arrangement reflected in option B which allows a single cost increasing claim for an amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the basic pay cost which takes into account the need for efficiency, flexibility and change. It is similar to the old special increases which obtained in previous programmes. There was no difficulty in passing this type of increase on to pensioners.
Option A in the PCW requires changes in structures, work practices or other conditions of service and savings and an improved quality of public service.
Were there no savings in the old days?
It is the option A arrangement which has given rise to the difficulties.
What about the l930s, l940s and l950s?
If the Deputy wants to refer to those days that is fair enough but we should begin with the l960s, l970s and l980s and the programmes of the modern era. The mistake made by the previous Government was that when option A was introduced — I have no problem with option A, it is a legitimate arrangement — it neglected to provide for the consequential effect on pensions. The problem was then presented to us in the recent general election. In fairness to Deputy Broughan, I am sure he was as sympathetic to the people about this matter as I was, but the Deputy's party in Government failed to make special provision for pensions. This is another example of a cheque drawn before an election which bounces afterwards, and which we have to deal with in Government.
We are used to that.
That is the essential problem this side of the House is faced with. I am glad the Minister has made a commitment by way of amendment to the motion and I urge him to honour that commitment. Whatever the complexities and difficulties — one difficulty outlined by the Minister is the anticipated demographic change in the decades ahead — I urge the Minister to provide for this group.
The Minister made a fair point when he said that some elements will lose out if we insist on a rigid link between option A improvements and increases in pay. Groups that have not benefited such as gardaí and teachers will accrue no additional benefits in their pension arrangements. I urge the Minister, as a gesture of goodwill, to have regard in the budget to those groups and ensure the basic principle of parity is honoured in the spirit as well as in the letter. It is the spirit of the principle that is important. In the public sector pension arrangements, we must recognise the contribution made by public servants down the years.
Money is important too.
Yes. The Deputy's party has always had a close relationship with the trade union movement, and I wonder whether pensioners should have a voice in the negotiation of programmes. It is fundamentally unjust, inequitable and unsound that arrangements are negotiated by the existing workforce which can prejudice the interests and entitlements of the retired workforce. That matter must be addressed in negotiation of future programmes. It is unjust that bodies which represent pensioners do not have an equal voice with bodies that represent the existing workforce. That is clearly a defect in the present negotiation arrangements, which led us to the present position. I urge the Minister to make generous provision for pensioners in the budget.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Theresa Ahearn, McGrath, Gilmore and Ó Caoláin.
I listened with special interest to last night's contribution by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, because the issue of future pension provision, by the social welfare system, private provision and public service provision, is serious. Thankfully, our demographic position puts us at an advantage compared to many of our European neighbours who are forced to deal with this crisis 20 years or more before us. In recent discussion of this matter in Germany and Holland the phrase "a pension timebomb" was appropriate.
During the last Dáil I took a particular interest in this subject. With a number of colleagues, I helped to establish an all-party backbench committee on pensioners, including those in the public service, and retired workers. There was much support from the seniors' committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions led by senior officials of recent decades such as Mattie Merrigan, Michael O'Halloran and Bobby Rice. We organised many meetings of the pensioners' committee and there was support from Deputies Wallace and Hughes, Fianna Fáil, Deputy Flaherty, Fine Gael, Deputy Byrne, Democratic Left, Deputy Sargent, the Green Party and Deputy Costello and myself from the Labour Party.
Our discussions led to two fundamental conclusions. Pensioners had been unfairly excluded down the years from negotiations on the PCW and other partnership agreements. They were to some extent the ghost at the table, similar to representatives of the unemployed. There was a general feeling in our discussions that that should not happen again, that Governments and trade unions should be determined that the development to which Deputy Lenihan alluded should not recur.
We discussed future pension provision with representatives of the Committee of Public Accounts. I was glad pensioners' representatives met officials of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs and strong representations were made to the Minister for Finance. I hope the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will carry on the work which we began in this regard in the 27th Dáil. The Minister said that in regard to public service pensions parity was not an issue when this Government took office. He is correct in that the matter was already under discussion between the public service committee of ICTU and officials from the Department of Finance. The previous Government committed itself to implementing any agreements arising from those discussions.
Some matters are clearer now than they were in June. In a recent debate in this House the Minister suggested that there were three Charlie McCreevys speaking in that evening's debate. Multiplicity is one of the Government's strong points, and in recent weeks we discovered there are two kinds of promise in the Government's lexicon, a promise and an election promise. After a very short period in office, we are witnessing an increasing litany of broken promises by the Government, on Sellafield, mandatory reporting, zero tolerance, corporation tax rates and public service pensions.
I would like to see the Labour Party manifesto. Perhaps that party ran out of pages on which to write it.
The Deputy had no part in drawing it up.
Fianna Fáil and, at a later stage, Fine Gael helped us to deliver the manifesto of 1992. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats manifesto has been cynically torn up by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. As my colleague Deputy McDowell said, there has been almost a U-turn per week since the Dáil resumed. The Estimates campaign seems to be, as rumours suggest, a brutal campaign, with agonising discussions on various mornings, even on the floor of the Dáil, between the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen.
We have never had a better Minister for Education.
This process will undoubtedly mean the number of broken promises on spending issues will run into double figures. While some issues are clearer now than in June other issues remain complicated, including the public service pension time bomb alluded to by the Minister. Is this the beginning of a scare campaign on the issue?
I have always had respect for the Minister for Finance and I was one of the first to congratulate him on his new portfolio. I am confident this issue was not new to him when it arrived on his desk in June and neither was he unaware of it when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste issued a joint statement two days in advance of the election saying they were committed to restoring the link between pensions and increases in current rates of public service pay. That statement was more about votes, winning the ten additional seats and scraping into Government than about public service pensioners.
There is also a second side to the broken promise. The statement by the leader on 4 June promised to address the issue urgently. The Minister may not think 118 days is an undue delay. I am confident the 78,000 people whose hopes were raised and subsequently dashed hold a different view. Some of them are in the public gallery. The irony of the matter is that at the last meeting between the Government and the Public Service Committee the latter put forward concrete proposals aimed at resolving the problem but it has not had the courtesy of another meeting to discuss those proposals.
As a Labour Party candidate I was under pressure on this issue during the election. Along with the crime issue, public service pensions was one of the two major issues on the doorsteps and clearly very important to all sectors of the community. Even though the Labour Party was committed to honouring the results of the negotiations between the two parties, pressure was no doubt escalated by the false promises of Fianna Fáil. Politicians of all parties have been partially scapegoated as the people responsible for the problem arising.
The negotiations were conducted under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. As a former teacher I know that sometimes teachers' leaders, such as Senator Joe O'Toole, were not sufficiently cognisant of the claims of their pensioners when negotiating in relation to option A and did not look sufficiently at the huge sacrifices made in earlier decades by our retired teaching colleagues. Last night my colleagues referred to various public sector professions such as nursing. Most economists would ascribe our economic growth to our education system. Teachers taught classes of 40, 50 and 60 pupils prior to restructuring and strategic programmes. This week one of my constituents is retiring on the magnificent sum of £200 per week on which to eke out a living for himself and his wife. There is a huge case to be answered here. As my colleague Deputy Penrose said, the sum needed to meet our obligations towards our colleagues in the public service pension area is a modest amount of about £30 million or £35 million. The Government is honour bound to address this matter in the next couple of weeks as final preparations are made for the Estimates. I support the motion.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to share the brief time available. The issue of public service pay and pensions and the fair treatment of all our public servants should be the basis for any Government policy. Unless this is achieved we will not have a motivated, efficient and competitive public service. The Government by its attitude and lack of clarity is distancing itself from its election promises. This has the potential to do enormous damage to our public service. It is no harm to remind the Government of its commitment to 77,000 pensioners two days before the election that their pensions would be 50 per cent of their salaries, that the parity link between salary and pensions would be maintained. Nothing has happened since. Four months later the Government obviously believes election promises can be forgotten. It shows it is patently unaware of its precarious position and that broken election promises will prove fatal in this unstable partnership and will inevitably lead to an early election.
It is appalling for any party to mislead anyone, but to mislead those who have retired after many years of long and faithful service to the public is unforgivable. The Government has misled those who have worked hard in difficult times in the public service and betrayed them when they were most vulnerable before the election. The commitment to ensure parity between salary and pensions was not given in innocence and the Government was not unaware of the cost implications. The election had to be won at any price, even at the price of its own integrity. These are the people who worked long hours for low pay when it was difficult to develop our services. The real worry for those of us who are supporting the motion is that the Government has proven, just four months later, it has no difficulty in doing U-turns on its election promises. The last thing the Government should do is a U-turn regarding the retired who have additional expenses and who, because of the service they have given over the years, deserve that pension.
It is sad to recall the number who have retired from the public service and who come to my clinic and put forward a case for justice. Irrespective of when the next election takes place if the Government betrays its promise on this important issue of parity between salary and pensions it will not be forgotten by the people. It does none of us a favour that on an issue as important as this the Government will not honour its promise.
I am pleased to support the motion tabled by the Labour Party. I hope, following contributions in the House, if not by its own good will, the Government will honour its election promises or, at least, be embarrassed into doing so and that those who have given long service will be able to enjoy their retirement.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and compliment the Labour Party on tabling this timely motion and for sharing time with us.
Many people who consider they are entitled to pension increases in keeping with those enjoyed by their working colleagues have served the State well for decades. Some of them have 40 years' service in the public service as nurses, teachers, etc. They have now reached their twilight years and expect their share of the State's goodwill. In this case goodwill would be parity of pensions. Parity in relation to public service pensions goes back to the first agreement in 1969. It was confirmed in 1984 and reconfirmed in 1986. Given the recent increases to serving nurses, pensioners expected to receive increases in keeping with those enjoyed by their working colleagues. Recently I spoke to a retired psychiatric male nurse. The pension increase to which he thinks he is entitled is £1,500. That is a large sum to a pensioner who worked as a nurse for 40 years. That £1,500 could mean the difference between sparing and being able to live a little better. That is owed to him.
I was particularly struck by the commitments given by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil in their pre-election literature and letters to various organisations. My reading of those commitments was that they would look after pensioners and tonight's motion will test that. Will the Government renege on the commitments it gave in good faith to those people before the election? It must be difficult for you as an honourable member of the Fianna Fáil Party to face pensioners knowing the commitments your party made in its manifesto. It must be extremely difficult for you to tell them you were in Opposition when the promises were made and your party did not intend to deliver on them. Honourable people would not behave in that manner and I hope the Government will not.
The Minister's speech pointed to the fact that he could not pay the pensions. He almost used the term "pensions time bomb". Deputy Coughlan will know from the work of the Joint Committee on the Family last year that we do not have a pensions time bomb. While the demographic population and trends are changing, we are not in the same mould as the rest of Europe. Many people, particularly insurance companies, when selling their products or addressing conferences talk about the pensions time bomb facing us. The report on the elderly published by the Joint Committee on the Family illustrates that is not the case.
The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, stated that the unfavourable cost outlook for public service pensions will materialise at a time when the general ageing of the population is placing everincreasing demands on the State's resources, particularly in the form of social welfare pensions and health care costs. The population is ageing and the number of people over 65 will increase, but that is not the whole picture. There are two groups of dependants, the elderly over 65 and school children. The number of elderly over 65 will increase substantially over the next 25 years, but the number of children will decrease. Therefore, the total number of dependants will remain stable. The working group will also increase significantly in the years ahead. Unemployment figures are reducing and the numbers at work are increasing. While our ageing population will increase, the number of dependants will remain stable and the economically active will increase.
I vigorously support the motion, we owe it to our pensioners. We must live up to our commitments and acknowledge the service those people gave to the State. I have no difficulty supporting the motion and commend it to the House.
On behalf of Democratic Left I support the motion which calls on the Government to honour pension parity for public service pensioners and to increase the pensions of public servants in line with the increases in pay for public service employees. The right of public service pensioners to be paid increases in line with pay increases is long established. A departure from the principle of pension parity would undermine the fundamental pension rights of pensioners and the employment rights of existing public servants who have yet to retire on pension.
Most retired public servants receive a small pension. Retired gardaí, nurses, teachers, civil servants and employees of health boards, vocational education committees and local authorities who have given their entire working life to public service retire on a maximum pension of 50 per cent of salary. In practice, this means that after 40 years service to the country a public servant retires on a pension of between £10,000 and £15,000 per annum. Many public servants do not have full service and will retire on a much smaller pension. Many thousands of public service pensioners are living in a pensioners poverty trap. The saddest cases I meet are elderly retired public servants who have given a life time of work to the State and are trying desperately to keep up appearances on their small pensions.
A pension of 50 per cent of salary compares unfavourably with the norm for funded schemes which normally gives full pension at two-thirds of salary. The one entitlement from which retired public servants could draw some comfort was that their pensions would increase in line with the pay for the job from which they retired, but the Government appears to be undermining this. I echo the call for the Government to increase pensions in line with pay increases. I do not accept the Minister for Finance's argument that the agreements made under option A of the PCW change the position. I understand there may be administrative difficulties in calculating pensions and that this may cause some delay in their payment. However, the Minister's suggestion that some existing public servants made agreements for increased pay on the basis of flexibility and productivity and that this might not be passed on to pensioners who retired in those grades is not tenable. If that principle is upheld there will be an increasing erosion of public service pensioners' rights. We live in an era when pay movement is increasingly based on flexibility and productivity. To suggest that pensioners cannot benefit from that is denying them recognition for the productivity and flexibility they gave in a different time and in a different ways.
I am concerned about the recent signals in relation to pensions. I am not comforted by what the Minster for Finance said yesterday. He appears to be signalling that the Government intends to reduce the public service pension bill. He is certainly not talking about increasing pensions. Existing pensioners and public servants would do well to examine closely what is being proposed in regard to their pensions. The cost of public service and social welfare pensions will increase in the future. We pride ourselves on being a civilised society and the mark of such a society is how it cares for its retired and elderly. People who have given their working life to the service of the State are entitled to have their pensions honoured and paid in full.
Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún. Níl ach cothrom na Féinne á lorg againn do na mílte daoine atá ar phinsean ón tseirbhís phoiblí. Ba mhaith liom labhairt go háirithe ar son na mbanaltran, daoine a bhfuil seirbhís fhada dhian déanta acu ag tabhairt aire don phobal.
It is reprehensible that at a time when the State coffers are bulging, retired public servants have had to take to the streets to protect their pension rights. The removal of parity between pensions and wage increases in the public service was a backward step for all workers and retired people. Retired public servants were given a pre-election promise which has come back to the door of the Government. In a joint statement on 4 June the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, made an unambiguous promise that they were committed to restoring the link between pensions and increases in current rates of public service pay. They must honour that commitment without delay. The deterioration in the position of retired public servants came in a period when we saw golden handshakes, like that given to the discredited chief executive of Bord na Móna who got a £1 million farewell for his services. We also saw increased salaries for top executives in the semi-State sector which were in breach of Government guidelines. That is in sharp contrast to the treatment of those public servants at the other end of the scale who took to the streets to seek their rights. Unless this major anomaly and ill-treatment is dealt with immediately, they will have to take to the streets again. They have signposted 5 November to once again appear at the gates of this House.
I wish to refer in particular to the position of retired nurses because it is to be deplored. They were undervalued, underpaid and overworked during their careers and they now see their well earned pensions deteriorating. That must not be allowed to continue. There must be no more prevarication. The Government must act immediately. I fully support the motion without amendment.
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen.
Acting Chairman
That is agreed.
Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo mar sílim go bhfuil sé an-tábhachtach.
I do not want to detract from the tenor of the discussion, but I am most disturbed the Opposition is suffering from an incurable disease called political amnesia. If I recall correctly, at the time of the nurses' dispute the then Opposition pressurised the then Government into honouring a commitment to examine nurses' pay. There was adequate time at that stage to deal with the link between the warranted pay increases and pension rights.
Like other Members, I represent a constituency in which there are a large number of retired public servants, be they teachers, nurses or whatever, who have given a tremendous amount of their energy and commitment to this State and their jobs. I agree it is important to recognise their contribution and that can only be done when they retire, in their pensions. It is unjust that if a person were due to retire next year he or she would have different pension rights from a person who retired in June of this year.
It is mischievous for the Opposition to say the Government has made a U-turn on the commitment given in the election campaign. It is the job of the Opposition to be mischievous, but I hope it will not detract from people's serious concern about this issue. There was a protest about this matter outside the House some time ago and we all took the opportunity to meet those people whose concerns were genuine. We are all supportive of their concerns. I reiterate the concern of my constituents that there should parity of pension rights. Having been a Member of this House for ten years, I am pragmatic and realise that one cannot make decisions on pensions or other monetary matters until the Estimates have been agreed. We are in the process of dealing with them. I reiterate the call to ensure that as part of the budget and Estimates that public service pensions will be looked after and the commitment, as stated in the Government amendment, will be adhered to.
I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. Our retired public servants have a justifiable case. Given that we have been a short time in Government, I believe we will be able to honour our commitment in the context of the Government amendment. I hope the Minister and Minister of State will be given enough support to ensure that this justifiable case is addressed as soon as possible within the confines of the Estimates with which the Minister for Finance is dealing. Given the seriousness of this matter, I am hopeful it will be addressed.
I reiterate what my colleague, the Minister for Finance, said yesterday when he tabled an amendment to this motion to ensure there is no misunderstanding in this regard in the House. He said that Dáil Éireann, recalling the pledge of the Government parties outlined in the Action Programme for the Millennium to protect public service pensions, notes that it is the intention of the Government to honour this commitment. There is no ambiguity in the language used by the Government in that regard. It is wrong of Opposition Deputies to mischievously upset and undermine those who are concerned about this issue, many of whom I spoke to when they protested outside Dáil Éireann some weeks ago.
When introducing the motion Deputy Quinn said that the Government had 117 days to resolve this problem. He also said that it had done nothing to meet its commitments, but the Government has been actively dealing with this problem. Therefore, I therefore reject Deputy Quinn's suggestions. There has been contact with the Commission on Public Service Pensions and, as the Minister for Finance said, the matter will be resolved in the near future in the context of the current Estimates and budgetary process.
Deputy Quinn also said that the previous Government, despite the matter being within its remit for two years or more, could not resolve it because all the restructuring deals had not been finalised. That is a spurious argument. The general nature, thrust and cost of most of the deals were well known for at least a year before the previous Government went out of office. Many of them had been finalised. It would have been possible for the previous Government to come to a conclusion on the pensions aspect, but it was not prepared to do so because of the complexity of the problem and for other reasons.
This was a live issue during most, if not all, the period of office of the previous Government, but it did not take action on it. Under the circumstances it ill behoves them now to make a song and dance about the fact that the Government is taking a couple of months to dispose of such a difficult and complex matter, and it will dispose of it.
The House can be assured that the Government will honour its commitments to ensure a fair and reasonable outcome to this matter and will arrange for a secure and fair level of retirement income for public service pensioners. The Government will decide the manner in which the commitment to protect public service pensions will be implemented as part of the current Estimates and budgetary process. The budget is due on 2 December.
I want to make it crystal clear that the Government has never rejected the system of pensions parity and has applied it in the context of the first phase pay increase of Partnership 2000. I also reiterate that the restructuring deals, which has given rise to this problem, vary widely in nature and they commit staff to deliver genuine productivity and flexibility which would not have been delivered by the previous pensioners. They are, therefore, very difficult to knit into the rationale underlying the Irish system of pension increases. It was never the intention that pensions parity would apply to pensioners changes in the grading of their posts which occurred after retirement or changes in pay resulting from productivity. The intention was rather to ensure that a pension would be related to the pay a pensioner would have had if he or she had remained in a post doing the same work at the same level of productivity as applied while he was in service.
Acceptance of the motion would, by applying traditional parity to the deals, produce widely differing results for various groups of public service pensioners, with some benefiting very substantially and others getting little or no benefit.
I direct the attention of Deputies to the fact that, even assuming no further improvement in public service pensions terms, there will be a huge increase in the cost of public service pensions over the coming years. The cost could increase more than fivefold in the next 30 years. For example, if it were assumed that average pay increased by about 5 per cent annually and prices by about 2.5 per cent annually — everybody would agree that those figures are conservative — the bill in the year 2025 would total £2.9 billion in constant price terms. Great care must be taken in deciding on any cost-increasing changes in the existing system.
The unfavourable cost outlook for public service pensions will materialise at a time of greatly increasing social welfare pensions and health care costs. It is estimated that total social welfare pension payments will increase from £1.7 billion currently to £3.2 billion in 2026 and £4.3 billion in 2046, on the basis that pensions are increased in line with inflation. If increased in line with earnings, the bill would rise to £5.6 billion in 2026 and £11.3 billion in 2046.
It does not diminish our concern to treat public service pensioners in a fair and equitable way that the Government considers it our duty to take full account of the emerging costs of the Exchequer pensions bill. The Government has given considerable attention to the issue of applying pensions increases to pensioners under the restructuring clause of the PCW. To help it in this area, it referred the matter to the Commission on Public Service Pensions.
The commission in its reply said it would face difficulties in articulating a definitive view on this problem at this juncture. It considered the issue in its interim report but stressed that any comments are necessarily incomplete and preliminary. It emphasised that it would consider this issue within the broad range of pension issues coming within its remit and on which it is scheduled to report to Government in 1998.
Nevertheless, its preliminary view on the pension increases issue, as set out in the interim report, was that pensions should be increased to provide a secure and fair level of retirement income to pensioners. The commission went on to suggest there are three principal pension increase options available — in line with pay, the CPI or some other index appropriate to pensioners — and it will consider each of these in its final report.
Fianna Fáil has been to the forefront in introducing significant improvements in the position of public service pensioners — for example, the introduction of parity for pensioners and the pension scheme for the spouses and children of public servants. With our partners in this Government, we are equally committed to protecting public service pensioners as outlined in An Action Programme for the Millennium. Our commitment is clear in the programme. The Labour Party position, however, was never clarified when it was in Government. The Minister for Finance has stated he will ensure that pensioners in general are dealt with equitably.
I stand over the view that the Labour Party motion would give little or nothing to many groups of public servants. If that is the effective position of the Labour Party, it is a very strange approach from a group professing to have great concern for public service pensioners. The present Government is trying to achieve a comprehensive solution to this matter which will be fair and equitable to all parties.
As the Minister clearly stated, having full regard to the emerging costs, he is committed to devising a solution which marries the Programme for Competitiveness and Work with the rationale underlying the concept of pensions parity. The Government will decide the manner in which the commitment to protect public service pensions will be implemented as part of the current Estimates-budgetary process.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the debate on behalf of the Labour Party.
Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I will comment on the Minister of State's last remarks. Nobody in the Labour Party would ever support a proposition which would leave pensioners worse off and the Minister of State knows that. A number of options have been put by the public service committee of congress to the Minister's official, one of which is that there should be a basic floor of 3 per cent or perhaps 5 per cent. I am not in the business of prescribing the eventual solution for this, but everybody is agreed that no pensioner will be worse off as a result of any deal done and there is nothing in this Labour Party motion which would have that effect.
There are two issues before the House. First, and most importantly, there is the question of public service pensions. Second, there is the related question of the credibility of Government and the integrity of the political process.
Since 1969, successive Governments have accepted the need to guarantee the value of public service pensions. That need was particularly pressing during the years of hyper-inflation in the mid-and late 1970s. The reasoning and the justice of the case was obvious then as it is now; it was in all conscience simply not possible to contemplate a position where pensioners were on a fixed income while wages and prices were rising at a rate of 20 per cent, 25 per cent and, at one stage, at an even higher rate.
There are several ways in which this can be done. Pensions can be linked to the consumer price index, wage inflation generally or the salaries of public servants still in office, and it is the latter practice which is the one which has been traditionally followed.
I listened with interest earlier to Deputy Lenihan and, indeed, the Minister of State as they sought to distinguish between options A and B in the PCW. There is a distinction to be made, but the suggestion appears to be that if one goes for or looks at the restructuring option it is somehow not possible in principle or in practice to apply an increase which is granted under that option to retired pensioners. That defies logic.
It may be something of a cliché, but we have been, and are, well served by our public servants. This is a small peripheral European country. The State was required in its early years as a matter of practical necessity to set up infrastructure and provide services which in other countries are often provided by the private sector. Many of the services we now take for granted were built up from a very low base and it is worth remembering the appalling conditions in which today's pensioners worked. Even when I went to school some 20 years ago in the early 1970s, it was quite common to have more than 50 pupils in a primary school class, circumstances which today's teachers would never accept and rightly so. Public servants, such as gardaí, teachers and nurses, until recent years where paid a salary which was a good deal less than adequate. It is also fair to say that in recent years many of those workers have caught up with private sector pay rates and that is all to the good. We cannot retrospectively increase the salary of those who gave service in the past but we can and must recognise that service by making due provision for these people in their old age.
The current position is unusual but it is not unprecedented. Since 1986, it has been the practice to extend so-called special increases which are granted to serving workers to pensioners who served previously in the same grade or the nearest equivalent. The logic here is simple and compelling and is driven by a simple appreciation of the facts.
A report was circulated last year to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs which sets out the extent of special pay increases in the public service from 1979 to date. The report drew largely on material which had been compiled by the NESC. This report shows that every grade in the Civil Service benefited to some extent during the period to which I refer, that is 1979 to 1992, from some sort of special award ranging from 6 and 9 per cent for clerical officers and clerical assistants up to 36 per cent for the secretary and the assistant secretary. Special awards are by no means new. On the contrary, they are a well established way in which we remunerate civil servants. It is my understanding, this is the nub of the debate, that all or at least most of these increases were applied pro rata to the pensions of people who retired from the same grade. How could it be otherwise?
Job descriptions and demarcations are constantly changing. The job done by a nurse today is quite different from that done ten to 20 years ago. It must be remembered that 20 years ago the vast majority of nurses retired when and if they married. At that time nurses were expected to work no longer than five to ten years and the pay scale reflected that presumption. Now, the position could hardly be more different. Most nurses carry out clinical duty on a regular basis, are highly trained and make use of sophisticated equipment virtually all the time. The previous Government established a Commission on Nursing to consider the role of nurses in the future. The commission's interim report was published at the beginning of the month and it acknowledges that many nurses seek and acquire qualifications above and beyond the basic nursing qualification. It stands to reason that this should be taken into consideration when setting pay rates.
More training, greater flexibility and higher productivity are increasingly becoming features of the labour market. It is correct that workers should be remunerated accordingly but it is also correct that pensioners should receive pro rata increases. If we do not go down the road towards parity, or if we do not preserve that road, we will inevitably create a two tier or multi-tier pension system. Surely it cannot be right that one retired nurse is on one rate of pension while another retired nurse with the same service in the same grade receives a different rate of pension by virtue of the fact that they retired on different days. Any such system should rightly be seen to be unfair and discriminatory and it will lead to great resentment. This is something we should seek to avoid at all costs.
I wish to refer to two matters of detail in respect of which the Minister of State may be able to provide information. Since 1995 newly recruited civil servants pay the full rate of PRSI. As I understand it, they are paid a higher rate of gross pay to compensate for this fact. Equally, I understand that the pension rates are calculated by reference to gross pay. Does that imply that civil servants paying the higher rate will be entitled to a higher pension when they retire? If that is so, surely it is invidious. My second point relates to performance-related pay which is an important element of the SMI and the Minister of State is interested in introducing reforms in this area. In time, I hope a large number of civil servants will be entitled to an element of performance-related pay. Am I correct in assuming that this will be discounted for the purpose of assessing parity? I do not know if these matters have received attention as yet. Will the Minister of State clarify the position at a later date?
In his contribution, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made a number of interesting remarks in respect of the funding of public service pensions. He referred at length to the interim report of the Commission on Public Service Pensions, which unfortunately has not been placed in the public domain. This makes it difficult for me and other Members on this side of the House to comment on its contents in detail. However, I read the actuarial review of social welfare pensions published recently by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs to which the Minister of State referred. Some of the contents of that report, particularly its projections and statistics, are startling. For example, it is projected that the number of persons over 65 years of age will increase from the current figure of 414,000 — 11 per cent of the population — to 1.018 million — 27 per cent of the population — in the year 2056. Part of this will result from changes in the birth rate but, in the main, it will be due to longer life expectancy.
The Labour Party recognises that this will present us with an important challenge. It was with this in mind that Deputy Quinn, as Minister for Finance, asked the Commission on Public Service Pensions to undertake the valuable work in which it is currently engaged. My party will be happy to play its part in any public discussion of the issues. Having said that, I find a number of the Minister's comments disturbing. He stated that the priority must be that additional pension scheme improvements are not introduced which would impose significant additional pension liabilities.
During a discussion on the 1997 Estimates, at which I believe the Minister of State was present, the current Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, made it clear in his inimitable way that he was prepared to think the unthinkable on this issue, even if that upset many public servants. Many public servants will be upset by the approach the Minister is thinking of adopting. We must make it clear that the State will meet its liabilities to retired public servants. More than that, in as much as we can, we must ensure that retired persons share the benefits of current economic growth.
For many years the Progressive Democrats and, to a lesser extent, Fianna Fáil have cribbed about the number of public servants, the work they do and the level of public sector pay. This culminated in the Progressive Democrats' infamous election pledge to reduce Civil Service numbers by 25,000. The last thing we need is for this carping and cribbing to be translated into carping and cribbing about public service pensioners. These people have served us well and deserve our unqualified thanks and support in the future.
My party acknowledges that there is a challenge which must be met. Consideration must be given to meeting future liabilities. In these days of budget surplus there is an argument in favour of setting aside moneys in a pension fund which would at least partially finance public service pensions in the future. We are willing to consider this matter.
Let me turn to the politics of the current situation. In a press statement dated 4 June last, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste stated that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in Government would request the central review committee of Partnership 2000 to resolve the claim for pension parity for retired public service staff as a matter of urgency.
That is what is happening.
The Deputy can tear up that statement.
Fianna Fáil candidates made it clear to pensioners that they would "see them right" if they were returned to Government. They were returned to Government and have been in power for four months. What has happened in the interim? The simple answer is "not very much". Officials of the public service committee of congress met with officials of the Department of Finance on June 23 last, three days before the Government was formed. They have not met since and, as far as I am aware, the Minister has no plans for such a meeting. From the tone of the contributions of the Minister and the Minister of State, this is now regarded as a matter for decision of Government. It is no longer a matter for negotiation or the CRC. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister or Minister of State can clarify the position.
In recent weeks we have witnessed the disturbing sight of pensioners demonstrating outside this House. Understandably, these people feel badly let down and abused. Who can blame them? The sense of urgency which the Taoiseach and Tánaiste felt on 4 June has apparently evaporated in the afterglow in the election victory.
It has not evaporated.
Last night, the Minister stated that this is a complex matter. The Minister of State repeated it this evening Of course it is important. However, the Minister and his party were aware of that on 4 June when they undertook to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. In Opposition, Fianna Fáil offered a quick fix when it ought to have known that it could not or would not deliver.
The past weeks have been bad for politics in Ireland. The Government has performed more U-turns in the first weeks of this session than any Administration in recent memory. The programme for Government committed the Government to introducing mandatory reporting of child abuse. On 9 October the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Fahey, informed us that the Government would do nothing of the kind. The programme for Government committed the Government to a 10 per cent of corporation tax. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Tánaiste travelled to Brussels and informed us they could deliver nothing of the kind. In its programme for Government the Government undertook to fully fund the case against Sellafield being taken by the residents of County Louth, up to and including an appeal if needed. The Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, Deputy Jacob, later announced that the funding would be capped, the Independent Deputies intervened and no one now knows the actual position.
The Government has done violence to the integrity of the political system. How can we expect people to believe what we say when we do not apparently seem to believe it ourselves? The Government will not be forgiven if it attempts a U-turn on the issue before the House. Deputy Healy-Rae and other Independent Deputies were quick to embrace the pensioners when they came to this House. Now is the time for the Deputy and others to demonstrate their persuasive power. I look forward to their supporting the motion.
There are 78,000 public service pensioners. The maximum total cost of applying the parity principle would be in the region of £30 million. It is worth putting that figure in context. The total cost of public service pensions this year will be £540 million. The Department of Finance underestimated this year's tax revenue by at least £.5 billion. Growth this year will be pushing double figures. We will run an overall budget surplus, not just a current budget surplus, for the first time in decades. If things are so rosy — and they are — how can this Government possibly justify the sort of penny pinching in which it is currently engaged? Pensioners should not be made the victims of this Government's ideological hang-ups about spending, nor should they become the victims of yet another Government U-turn. I welcome the Minister's confirmation, albeit belated, that the matter will be dealt with. We on this side of the House will hold him to it. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Nil, 64.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dennehy, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerard.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wall, Jack.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dennehy, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghin.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Owen, Nora.
- Penrose, William.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerard.
- Ring, Michael.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Callely; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.
Question declared carried.