Paul McGrath
Ceist:145 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he has satisfied himself that the benchmarking payment due on 1 January 2004 represents good value for money. [20885/03]
Other Questions. - Benchmarking Payments.
Dinny McGinley
Ceist:214 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Finance if he has satisfied himself that the benchmarking payment due on 1 January 2004 represents good value for money. [21053/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 145 and 214 together.
In the Sustaining Progress agreement the phasing of the benchmarking increases is set out as follows: 25% with effect from 1 December, 2001; 50% of the increases from 1 January 2004; and 25% of the increases from 1 June 2005.
However, payment of these increases, with the exception of the 25% from 1 December 2001 and the general round increases, is dependent on meeting the conditions set out in the agreement. These are the absence of industrial action and the achievement of the objectives of the modernisation agenda.
The commitments to co-operation with change and modernisation in Sustaining Progress are more extensive and more specific than in the past. Strong verification arrangements have been put in place, in particular with a greater independent representation. Emphasis is placed on industrial peace in the public service. This is because industrial action harms delivery of public services and affects taxpayers. We have seen in the past how industrial action in the health and education sectors resulted in the disruption of public services in hospitals and schools. Maintaining industrial peace is also a very tangible and transparent target.
The modernisation agenda for the public service is set out in the agreement. There are some specific targets for the main sectors – health, Civil Service, education and local authorities. These include changes in the education sector to standardise the school year, parent-teacher meetings taking place outside school hours, initially on a half-in half-out basis, and other changes relating to examinations. In the Civil Service there will be a widening of the access to jobs at all levels and a new Civil Service Regulation Bill.
These are just some of the changes. However, in addition to these specific targets there is a gen eral commitment by the unions to co-operation with ongoing change. This should allow for continued developments either through technology or otherwise to improve services.
I have said that the Government will pay the increases on the basis of the conditions set down in the agreement. We are determined that all of the public service commitments agreed in Sustaining Progress must be delivered by those to whom they apply. There can be no rolling back on any of these commitments and there will be no renegotiation of them.
The agreement sets out the process to be followed for verification of achievement of the conditions necessary for payments to be made under the agreement. If any grades, sectors or organisations fail to agree on specific actions to achieve the commitments or, having so agreed, fail to deliver on them, they should not expect the verification process to decide that pay increases are warranted.
I am confident that over the period of Sustaining Progress the quality of public services will improve and there will be a period of stable industrial relations with no disruptions to the public service such as we have had in, for example, the health and education sectors in the recent past. If this happens then the public will get good value for money from the public service pay increases, not just in the short term but also continuing into the future. However, if the agreement is not adhered to then, quite simply, the money will not be paid.
Is the Minister aware that the original benchmarking agreement was based on the fundamental principle that co-operation with change and modernisation would not be the basis for an increase in pay under benchmarking? Rather, the 75% of benchmarking was to be based on proof that there were real outputs being delivered in value for money to people receiving services.
Am I not right in saying that all the things the Minister has listed are no more than co-operation with change, for which no pay should be given? Is it not the case that every general pay round had an industrial peace clause and we do not have to pay for them twice? Is it not the case that the arrangement for parent-teacher meetings, to which the Minister referred, was a commitment made in the PCW, not one but two pay agreements ago? Surely the Minister cannot ask the taxpayer to pay a second time for these increases. Is it not the case that if we are to secure benchmarking we must have a reform package that delivers value? What monetary value does the Minister see coming from the changes he says will occur? How will they improve services?
The Deputy is correct. In previous agreements there were references to industrial peace. Never in any agreement in which I have been involved has change and modernis ation been so specifically laid down as in this agreement. Performance verification groups have been set up, the Secretaries General of the relevant Departments must sign off before the payments can be made and if the changes are not forthcoming the money will not be paid.
The agreement explicitly says change cannot be a basis for a pay increase.
Some years ago, in response to a request from a Member who has since departed from the House, I inserted a section in a Bill, much to the chagrin of my own colleagues, to allow any Deputy or Senator to forgo any increase in salary. Deputies on either side of the House who have difficulty with the benchmarking payment for Deputies are accommodated by that section. I will be glad to accept such offers. I was glad to accede to that request and I remind Deputies of it.
Is the Minister not seeking to make a laughing stock of the benchmarking agreement? Does the Minister not have responsibility for bringing forward reforming measures in the House?
The Minister demonstrated remarkable foresight.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.