Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the first half of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46606/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Legislative Programme.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3152/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for 2009 to 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7058/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
My Department currently has one item of legislation on the A list of the Government legislation programme — the Statute Law Revision Bill. This is the latest element in the statute law revision project. In preparation for the Bill, work has been completed on the analysis of local and personal Acts up to and including 1850 and private Acts up to and including 1750. It is intended that the Bill dealing with those Acts will be published this session.
In January, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan, said she could introduce price controls on some goods if the differential was not passed on to customers. The Taoiseach is aware that the Consumers Association of Ireland claimed the introduction of price controls would be a disaster, particularly in a recession. It said the measure would allow all prices go to one level, usually the highest level. Yesterday, Retail Excellence Ireland stated price controls were unworkable where so many products were involved. The Tánaiste has commented that she may introduce price controls. Is that a runner or is it something her Department intends to do? Has the Tánaiste brought a proposal to Government in that regard? Perhaps the Taoiseach would like to respond to this before I ask another question.
Is there a legislative priority? The question is more appropriate to the Tánaiste.
The Tánaiste said she would introduce price controls.
That is not up to her.
Is the introduction of price controls not a matter of legislation? The Ceann Comhairle is looking at me very sceptically.
I am and I must, because it is a matter ——
Is that because it is Tuesday? Is that the Tuesday look from Cahirciveen?
No, whether it is Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, it does not matter what day it is.
The Ceann Comhairle has always looked like that.
Fine, no harm in trying. In his contribution at the recent Ard-Fheis, the Taoiseach mentioned the creation of a central banking commission which would incorporate the responsibilities of the Central Bank and the supervision and regulatory functions of the Financial Regulator. This is critical, given the extent of bad naming of our country abroad and the fact international markets have serious difficulty dealing with Ireland currently.
Does the Taoiseach intend to bring forward this legislation quickly and does it involve the merging of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator? Have the heads of the Bill been approved by Government yet? In view of the critical need for this function with regard to this segment of the financial and regulatory institution system, when does the Taoiseach expect the Bill will be brought before the House?
The need for regulatory reform is important and the issue is receiving priority in the Department of Finance. The Minister intends to bring forward proposals quickly as change is required to the legislative base on which the institutions were set up. We have outlined the changes envisaged and the Minister will bring his proposals to Government as soon as possible.
Is it intended that the Bill will involve the merger of the Central Bank and the functions of the Financial Regulator? We saw further resignations from a financial institution today. Everywhere one goes around the country, one is faced with small businesses and retailers who are unable to get lines of credit extended to them and jobs are being lost on a daily basis. We do not have a currency of our own but are part of the eurozone and the euro. Having examined the situation, does the Government intend to merge the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator? Is that the essence of the proposed Bill? Given the House will not sit next week, when does the Taoiseach expect it to come before the House?
As soon as it is brought to Government and approved, it will be published and brought to the House as quickly as possible. The issue is being given priority in the Department. The idea is to set up a central banking commission that would incorporate Central Bank functions and the regulatory aspects of the Financial Regulator's work. The consumer affairs aspect of the Financial Regulator's work would then be joined with the Office of the Financial Ombudsman.
The question deals with the Taoiseach's legislative priorities for 2009. Why is there so little proposed legislation from the Government, with only one piece of legislation to come from the Taoiseach's Department? Last year we had 25 pieces of legislation enacted, the lowest number of enactments for the past decade. We are now more than half way into the current Dáil session. We were promised that some 18 pieces of legislation would be published this session, but only one of those, the National Pensions Reserve Fund Bill, has been published.
Can the Taoiseach tell the House why the Government is bringing forward so little legislation? Why are important pieces of legislation which many of us have been seeking, such as the legislation to regulate the operation of management companies which affect tens of thousands of tenants in private rented accommodation and people who have bought apartments, taking so long? We have been seeking electronic surveillance legislation, which might assist in dealing with the crime problem. We were promised we would have at least the heads of a civil unions Bill by this time last year. What is delaying the legislation and why are Ministers so slow in bringing forward the legislation promised by this Government?
Since this Government came into office on 14 June 2007, 43 Bills have been enacted. Given that the previous Dáil brought forward a large amount of legislation, approximately 204 Bills, so there was not a large overhang of Bills on this Dáil. To a great extent, the legislative programme of the previous Dáil was completed. Therefore, much of the legislation coming before the House must be prepared and drafted during this Government's tenure rather than overhanging from previous Administrations. Apart from the A list, there has been emergency legislation passed in this session by reason of necessity, including the pensions levy legislation, the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act and the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act. There was also non-emergency legislation which was not on the A list, such as the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. This morning we put forward the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which will be published as a result. The legislation committee met last week and the Chief Whip is progressing much of the other legislation.
I am surprised the Taoiseach seems content with the legislative output of his Government. By any standards it is poor. Legislation on a number of issues is required. It has been promised for a long time but is not coming through. Given that there is only one, largely legalistic, piece of legislation to be dealt with by the Taoiseach's Department, I suggest he and his Department might assist with or take responsibility for bringing forward legislation where a number of Departments are involved. One example is the legislation for dealing with management companies, which the Labour Party has been raising here for years.
Many people purchased apartments for which the regime of management companies, responsible for the management of these areas, is a mess. People who purchased apartments and people who are renting are in a legal limbo regarding the operation of management companies. This is an increasing problem. In some cases the original developer might have taken an active interest in the management of the apartment blocks but might no longer be on the scene because of the downturn in construction activity and in development work. There is a major problem in this area. We were told the difficulty in bringing forward that legislation is that three Departments are involved. Where a number of Departments are involved in legislation I suggest the Taoiseach and his Department might take responsibility for bringing that legislation before the House. Very little legislation is coming from the Government, yet there are key areas in which people are facing major problems but where the legislation to address them is not appearing.
I hope the Taoiseach can help but I remind Members that questions on individual Bills should be directed to the line Minister in each case.
The legislation to which Deputy Gilmore referred specifically in his question is being drafted at present and it is hoped it will be ready for the next session. It is very involved legislation and it has many aspects spanning many Departments which has added to its complexity. I do not take away from the need to deal with it as urgently as possibly. The assistant secretary of my Department has been helping to co-ordinate the matter and bring it all together in a single Bill. The original problem was that there were so many issues to be addressed that they were being addressed by various Departments individually. It was decided to try to pull all of this together and the Attorney General has been working on it.
Apart from this, much time and activity in this session is being taken up by dealing with the economic crisis we face. The preparation of a supplementary budget will take precedence over all other work in the coming weeks. However, this is not to state that the legislative programme is not proceeding; it is. A number of Bills had to be brought forward at very short notice which involved major issues and which were debated in the House. This is by force of circumstance in terms of the issues arising from the financial crisis with which the Government must deal and contend.
An mbeidh gá le reachtaíocht chun fóram parlaiminte uile-Eireann a chur ar bun? Cuirim fáilte roimh an dul chun cinn atá déanta. Tá sé oiriúnach "maith thú" a rá leis an Cheann Comhairle, gan dabht, as ucht an méid atá déanta aige chun fóram a thógáil. An mbeidh ar Roinn an Taoisigh, Bille a thabhairt go dtí an Oireachtais? Ar an gcuma céanna, an mbeidh gá le reachtaíocht chun an fóram sibhialta a bhunú?
Speaking in July last year on a separate matter, the Taoiseach stated that some people had expressed disappointment about the level of progress made on the legislative commitments in Towards 2016. Cén reachtaíocht a bhí i gceist ag an Taoiseach ag an am sin?
Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil gá le Bille chun an chéad fhóram a luaigh an Teachta a chruthú. Is cinneadh polaitaíochta, idir an Tuaisceart agus an Pharlaimint seo, atá i gceist. Ba mhaith liom an comhrá sin a chomhlíonadh chomh luath agus is féidir chun go mbeidh cinneadh againn agus go mbeimid in ann dul ar aghaidh leis an eagraíocht a bhí ar intinn againn i gcomhaontú 1998.
D'iarr an Teachta freisin mar gheall ar an reachtaíocht a bhí in aigne agam nuair a labhair mé an bhliain seo caite. Bhí mé ag smaoineamh ar reachtaíocht a bhaineann le dlí an lucht oibre agus ábhair caidrimh tionsclaíochta. Tá sé ar intinn againn dhá Bille — an employment agency regulation Bill agus an industrial relations (amendment) Bill — a fhoilsiú agus a thógaint os comhair an Oireachtais chomh luath agus is féidir. Tá súil agam go mbeimid in ann iad a chur i ndlí chomh luath agus is féidir.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as ucht an dá fhreagra sin. With regard to the second matter on which the Taoiseach expressed concern just a little over six months ago, what is his current position on the same legislation he just outlined to us? Is any special effort being employed to bring forward the various pieces of legislation pertinent to this question?
We have a voluntary system of industrial relations in this country. Partnership has been the means by which consensus has been built up for legislation that would enhance conditions in the workplace and assist in the maintenance of orderly industrial relations that one would expect in this country, given the importance of harmony in the workplace and the wider social policy objectives set out in successive social partnership agreements. They require us to continue advancing many issues which are raised on both sides of industry, either by management or trade unions, in an effort to regulate and meet the changes in practice and employment conditions and to try to provide better security for people in a way that need not affect our competitiveness as a country to maintain and create jobs, which is the purpose of much of the activity that goes on within social partnership.
Over the past 20 years, we have been able to show that a broadly balanced approach has brought benefits for both workers and owners of enterprises in a way that is now being challenged in the very difficult situation we face, due to the need to revisit these issues and think our way through them in a way that is consistent with social partnership principles. That remains a continuing challenge. I have earlier referred to the great difficulty that is emerging in trying to find a consensus between both sides of industry, something which the Government has been seeking to facilitate in some of this legislation. Work is ongoing in that area.
Departmental Committees.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings held to date of the Cabinet committee on transforming public services, which he chairs and when the next meeting is scheduled. [1034/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the staff or resources which have been allocated to the programme office within his office, established to support implementation of the report of the task force on the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1035/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach when the cabinet committee on transforming public services last met; and when it is scheduled to meet next. [7059/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together. The Government statement on transforming public services and the report of the task force on the public service were published in late November. The statement sets out an ambitious programme of renewal for the entire public service and represents the next critical phase in the reform of our public services. Implementation is being overseen by the Cabinet committee on transforming public services, which has met twice already. The last meeting of the Cabinet committee took place on Wednesday, 4 March and the next meeting is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, 1 April. The first meeting took place in early February. The Cabinet committee will continue to meet regularly thereafter to ensure progress on the implementation of the commitments in transforming public services.
I chair the Cabinet committee and its membership also includes the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Minister for Education and Science. Other Ministers and Ministers of State will attend meetings as necessary.
The work of the Cabinet committee is being supported by the newly established programme office, which is based in my Department. The programme office will support organisations across the public service in their efforts at transformation and will also support the Government in driving, co-ordinating and monitoring progress in implementation. In addition, it will promote innovation and the piloting of new activities and identify areas for joint action by organisations.
The programme office has been established from within the existing financial and staff resources of my Department. In addition, it will be supplemented by four secondees, one each from the four main sectors of the public service, namely, the local government, health, education and justice sectors. The cost of these four individuals will be met by their parent organisations. Its full complement of staff will be in place shortly. No new resources will be used to implement the overall programme of change. Instead, the resources required to implement the programme will come from within existing allocations, through reprioritising activities.
Can the Taoiseach outline what recommendations made by the task force, arising from its consideration of the OECD report, have been implemented to date? When is the special group on public service numbers and expenditure — commonly known as an bord snip nua or an bord slash — due to report? How does it intend to report? Will there be a complete or partial report and will it be published? Is it a report solely for the Government or is it for public consumption?
Regarding the second part of the question, the committee was established by the Minister for Finance to whom it reports on an ongoing basis. It is in the process of examining areas of expenditure in various departmental Estimates and will proceed and report as it sees fit based on the work that it is progressing. Such work is reported to the Minister for Finance who then brings matters to the attention of the Cabinet. It is for the Cabinet to decide in what way any of the recommendations are to be implemented or what decisions are to be taken. Such political decisions are taken by Cabinet, but the recommendations or the work of the committee on public service numbers will inform the recommendations of the Minister for Finance to Cabinet.
I refer to the question regarding the progress made with the transforming public services programme. The implementation structures have been established, namely, the Cabinet committee and the steering group, and the programme office has been established. It is expected that the sectoral centres will also be up and running by the end of March. A communication strategy has been agreed by the Cabinet committee, the implementation of which has commenced. It includes a new website, a series of presentations and seminars and the production of sector specific and topic specific material. The special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes is currently reviewing staff allocation on a Vote group by Vote group basis. Thereafter, it is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
On organisational review programmes, the five organisations to be reviewed in 2009 have been identified and the process has commenced. A public announcement on the matter will be made shortly. On the value for money reviews, a new round of reviews was approved by Government in late 2008. The 2009 reviews are under way. They are due to commence in 12 Departments for completion by the end of this year. Again, the matter is reported to the Minister for Finance in the first instance. On shared services, groups have been established to drive forward shared services initiatives in respect of financial management, payroll, human resources, pensions, single point of contact telephone services and a common means assessment repository. Again, this matter is to be dealt with by the Minister for Finance in the first instance. On public procurement, the national operations unit based in the OPW has been established. A progress report to Government on e-Government projects is also coming forward. We have attempted to ensure the various recommendations under those headings are progressed. We put the structures in place and we have made arrangements for work to commence and that is ongoing.
Nuair a sheol an Taoiseach tuarascáil ar sheirbhísí poiblí i mí na Samhna 2008, dúirt sé go raibh sé "undertaking a programme of work on the structure and function of the public services". What is the next step in that programme of work? Cad í an chéad céim eile sa chlár oibre sin? Cad faoi struchtúr na seirbhísí poiblí? Cén sórt athruithe ata i gceist ag an Taoiseach?
Tá sé i gceist agam go mbeidh na seirbhísí poiblí níos éifeachtaí, go gcaithfí an tairgead atá ar fáil chun seirbhísí poiblí a chur os comhair na ndaoine chomh éifeachtach agus is féidir agus go ndéanfaí athruithe sna heagraíochtaí éagsula. Ní bheidh na teorainn céanna, a bhaineann leis na heagraíochtaí éagsúla go bhfuil sé mar chúram acu seirbhísí poiblí a chur ar fáil do dhaoine ar fud na tíre, i gceist as seo amach. Luaigh mé a lán initiatives, ar nós better value for money in public procurement, value for money in policy reviews, measures in managing the performance of people and organisations, better use of information, e-Government and shared services, better management of the public service and the whole question of implementation and accountability for transformation of public services, sa fhreagra a thug mé níos luaithe. Tá a lán oibre á dhéanamh againn. Tá sé riachtanach go gcomhlíonfaí na hathruithe atá i gceist againn sa tréimhse atá luaite sa tuarascáil.
Dúirt an Rialtas i ráiteas a chur sé amach le déanaí go mbeadh na hathruithe atá le déanamh leagtha amach i bplean trí bliana, atá fós le bheith curtha os ár gcomhair. Tá a fhios ag an Taoiseach go bhfuil an Rialtas chun buiséad nua a thógaint isteach go luath, ar an mbonn gur tharla rudaí áirithe le déanaí. An bhfuil sé i gceist ag an Rialtas plean a leagadh amach le haghaidh na trí bliana atá amach romhainn ó thaobh cursaí eacnamaíochta na tíre de? Ba cheart go mbeadh a fhios ag gach éinne agus gach eagras go bhfuil plean, ó thaobh an caiteachas náisiúnta de, leagtha amach le haghaidh na trí bliana atá amach romhainn.
Tá an cheart ag an Teachta go bhfuil sé ar intinn againn an plean seo a chomhlíonadh ar feadh na trí bliana atá amach romhainn. Léiríonn tuarascáil an task force go gcaithfimid an plean a thosnú má táimid chun dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ó thaobh an agenda forleathan atá againn — mar shampla, athrú mór a dhéanamh sa slí ina mbeidh seirbhísí poiblí os comhair na ndaoine sa tréimhse atá luaite agam.
I return to the Taoiseach's reply in respect of an bord snip. The Taoiseach stated this group would report to the Minister for Finance on an ongoing basis. Has it presented any reports to date? If so, on what Departments has it reported?
I am afraid this series of questions relates to the Cabinet committee on transforming public services.
That is what an bord snip is about. The question arises from——
It does not arise from this committee.
I accept there has been a long lead into this. An OECD report was published a year ago. A task force was then established by the Government to examine how to implement the OECD report. The task force presented a report in November and arising from this a Cabinet committee was established to implement the task force report on implementing the OECD report. There is also a programme office and a special group on numbers and expenditure. All of this is about one thing.
To be honest, it sounds a little like the song, "The Bog Down in the Valley". The questions relate to the Cabinet committee on transforming public services.
While I appreciate there is a bit of Sir Humphrey and the department of administrative affairs about this, nevertheless it all relates to the public service. In respect of what Departments has the group reported to date? Will we see the outcome of its reports? The Taoiseach also stated five organisations would be subject to review this year. To which organisations does he refer?
On the question of what progress the McCarthy committee has been making, we wanted an independent examination of staffing levels in all parts of the public service to identify those posts and activities which are not essential. The group will consider proposals by the management of each public body to achieve the reduced payroll allocation made for this year. Those recommendations will assist the Minister for Finance to identify economies which can be made in the immediate future. The intention is to identify those posts and activities which are not essential and develop proposals for the redeployment of staff.
The group began its work late last year and agreed its working methodology in December. It is working on a Vote group basis and each Vote group has been asked to prepare an evaluation paper for the group in advance of meeting the group. The relevant Vote sections are preparing material for the group's consideration. The group has met eight Departments and is meeting the defence and foreign affairs Vote groups on Wednesday, 11 March. It has received evaluation reports from 11 Departments as well as papers from the relevant Vote sections in the Department of Finance.The eight Departments with which it has met are the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Transport, the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Finance and the Department of the Taoiseach. Under its terms of reference, the committee is required to report to the Minister for Finance by the end of June and it is on course to do so. The group is free to provide comments or reports on spending issues before that if it so wishes and these can be taken into account by the Minister for Finance and the Government as appropriate.
An bhfuil moltaí cinnte déanta maidir leis na daoine atá ag obair sa tseirbhís phoiblí? Mar shampla, an mbeidh an Rialtas ag déileáil leis an HSE? An mbeidh gá le níos mó post i gcúram sláinte agus níos lú post i riarachán?
Tá thart ar 370,000 daoine ag obair sa tseirbhís phoiblí. Is é sin, go cruinn, an méid atá ann. Tá sé ar intinn ag an choiste mionscrúdú a dhéanamh ar an méid fostaithe atá sa HSE. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil gá leo go léir um an dtaca seo. B'fhéidir go mbeimid in ann na hacmhainní atá á chur ar fáil againn sa chóras slándála a úsáid ag an "front line".
Pension Provisions.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the amount expected to be paid by personnel in his Department arising from the pension-related deduction announced by him on 3 February 2009; the personnel within his Department who will not be required to make the payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4745/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the average amount expected to be paid by personnel in his Department arising from the pension-related deduction announced by him on 3 February 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4746/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected payments by staff in his Department under the proposed new levy on public service pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5673/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:10 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach how the proposed public service pension levy will affect staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7060/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
A preliminary estimate shows that the total amount to be paid by personnel in my Department arising from the pension levy will be in the region of €1.083 million in 2009. This is an average of €4,431.26 per whole-time equivalent employee. All personnel in my Department will be subject to the pension-related deduction.
I ask the Taoiseach to provide the range of payments in his Department. What is the lowest amount being paid and to what level of income does that apply? What is the highest amount being paid?
Why, despite the promises made by various Ministers before the implementation of the levy that it would be tweaked to take account of the concerns of those on very low incomes, did such tweaking not take place before its implementation?
I will have to provide the details on the Deputy's first question separately. With regard to his second question, I indicated on the day the pension levy was introduced that we were prepared to listen to proposals, but they would have to be on the basis that the €1.4 billion would still be obtained. Unfortunately, no such proposals were forthcoming. The levy is an imposition, obviously, but one must consider it as part of the full mandatory deductions, including PRSI, income tax, and health or income levies. If we consider this total picture, including the imposition of the pension levy, we will see that an unmarried person on a salary of €20,000 would have total deductions of 11%, while a person on more than €100,000 would have deductions of more than 43%.
People recognise the scale of the economic problems we face and they are willing to contribute. The Taoiseach will understand this because he has met many people from around the country. They are saying they will contribute their share on two conditions: first, that the contribution will actually go towards sorting out the problem; and second, that it is seen to be fair.
Patently, the social partnership and trade unions in particular consider the pension levy to be unfair. They have made the point that dealing with it in isolation does not bring the sense of fairness about which they speak. As a consequence, social injustice is perceived to exist. Clearly there are opportunities for others who are not caught in this situation to make contributions.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the pension levy passed by the Government is fair? Does he intend to reconsider it in the context of the budget which will be announced in early April in order to deal with the perception of unfairness which exists among so many people? Perhaps he will comment on whether the question of unfairness as a consequence of the pension levy will be addressed in his proposals to the House on the new budget. I do not know whether ICTU members will decide to take to the streets but if the Taoiseach deals with the perception of unfairness or states his intention of doing so he might prevent a lot of activity on the streets at the end of the month. Does he feel that the pension levy is fair and does he intend to use the budget to be announced in April to address the outrage that has arisen due to the perception that it is unfair?
These questions pertain to the Taoiseach's departmental staff.
The question of the pension levy formed a major part of the €2 billion in necessary savings which were agreed within the framework of social partnership. The alternatives were to consider social welfare provisions or non-pay, non-social welfare current expenditure. We had to seek savings from non-pay, non-social welfare current expenditure of more than €300 million in addition to the €1.4 billion from the pension levy and a further €300 million in capital savings. Everyone understood and agreed that immediate savings had to be found. If everyone agrees that was the amount to be found, one has to make an alternative proposal on what part of the service provision or social welfare provision the Deputy considers it fairer to reduce in order to deal with what he regards as unfairness. Every additional imposition presents a difficulty from somebody's point of view. An attempt was made to portray this as a simple initiative taken in isolation but it is part of a wider process of adjustment which has to take place and, indeed, a requirement that is all the greater given the deterioration in the public finances since its announcement.
As a public service employer, the reason we had to consider the pensions aspect and seek a larger contribution towards the availability of a public service pension after retirement is because it represents a significant asset compared to what those in the private sector now have available to them given the serious deterioration and, in some cases, the extinction of pensions for which they have paid. The economic costs of these private sector pensions have been met in full. It is well recognised and not disputed that the full cost of providing a public service pension would be a far greater imposition than what we have now decided upon. This simply represents an increased contribution as distinct from seeking the full economic costs of the pension, which would be the requirement of a private pension provision. These are important distinctions and the advantage now resides with public service workers in a way that is not available to private sector workers. Apart from that there is a greater degree of job security for those in the public sector and that is an important aspect given the many job losses we are seeing in the private sector as a result of the change in the market place and the reduction in demand for goods and services on an ongoing basis. It is in that context that the question of fairness must be discussed.
One does not expect a unanimous outcome to that debate but there must be an objective analysis of the difficult choices available to Government as to where the savings could be found and who could best provide them in terms of the benefits that accrue with employment in the public service vis-à-vis social welfare allowances, the money that goes to providing health services and the day to day costs of providing materials, goods and services necessary for services for the public.
If one were to look at it in that way, perhaps one would see the Government's decisions in this matter were grounded in trying to be fair in all circumstances, recognising that any extra imposition is regarded by anyone when it is not universal as being more unfair on them than on others.
There are considerations in that area that must be articulated so that people will understand the motivation behind the necessity for this €2 billion expenditure measure and the fact that it is the first of many adjustments that will have to be made, both in terms of expenditure and taxation in the months and years ahead as we try to ensure the economic viability of the State is maintained.
An mbeidh athruithe ar bith don cháin seo? Will there be any amendment to this so-called public service pension levy? I mo thuairim, ní tobhach é ach cáin ar sheirbhís phoiblí, it is not a levy but a tax on public service. Ar éist an Rialtas leis na ceardchumainn agus na daoine eile atá i gcoinne na cánach seo? Does the Taoiseach agree that people in the public service are willing to pay their fair share as long as the burden of taxation is fairly placed on all who can pay, and I emphasis the words "can pay"? Mar cheist dheireanach, cé nach cáin chothrom í seo, would the Taoiseach be willing to sit down with the trade unions to find a more effective and fairer way to raise money to meet the State's current straitened economic situation?
The Government made efforts to bring forward necessary measures. For the supplementary budget, we have made it clear that we are available to take any constructive ideas from anyone, including people inside and outside this House, on how best to address the serious issues confronting us at present. None of it will be painless and none of it will be immediately popular but it is necessary and it is the duty of Government to discharge that responsibility and I look forward to people on the other side of the House constructively contributing to that if they so wish.
Deputy Ó Caoláin refers to the pension levy as a tax on public service. It is not intended as a tax on public service, it is the imposition of a further contribution well short of the economic cost of a public service pension which is being sought from those who work in the public service and will have the benefit of that pension after their working life is over. That is an asset or benefit that is not available to many hundreds of thousands of workers in other sectors of the economy, some of whom have sought to prepare for retirement by providing the full economic cost of a supplementary pension that will not now be available to them because of the serious deterioration of pension fund values, one of the main casualties of the recent crisis.
We do have a fair and progressive tax system in this country and the levy is in keeping with that principle. Working examples concerning actual pay demonstrate that, as a rule, total deductions as a percentage of gross pay after the pension contribution are greater for those on higher rates of pay than lower ones. For example, an executive officer on the first point of the pay scale, €32,179, who joined after 1995 will have a total deduction of 22% of gross pay; whereas an assistant principal, also on the first point of the pay scale at €69,659, who joined after 1995, will have a total deduction of 38% of gross pay, when one takes everything into account.
The progressive trend is also observed in examples of pre-1995 civil servants. An executive officer on the first point of scale at €30,566, will have a total deduction of 18% of gross pay; whereas an assistant principal, also on the first point of the scale at €66,179, will have a total deduction of 33% of gross pay.
Across the Civil Service on all grades and all pay scales, from clerical officer to principal officer, the total deductions are higher as a percentage of gross pay as the pay goes higher. That is a progressive principle.