Vol. 752 No. 3
46Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total number of public servants expected to retire at the end of February; the measures Government Departments have put in place to protect frontline services when these public servants retire; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3940/12]
47Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the contingency measures he has put in place to ensure front line services are not adversely affected by public sector workers who under the Croke Park Agreement extension retire before the end of February 2012 in order to have their pension and tax free lump sum calculated based on their 2009 salary. [4178/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 46 and 47 together.
Latest figures from across the public service, excluding the health sector, indicate that approximately 4,000 are expected to retire in the first two months of 2012. In the health sector the data are based on the period September to February, with approximately 3,500 expected to retire in that timeframe. These figures are based on data reported by all public service employers about the numbers of retirement applications received. In some instances, staff will withdraw their application to retire owing to personal circumstances. There are also cases in which individuals who wish to retire have not given the full three months notice requested by the employer.
In the first instance, responsibility for operational planning in the context of reducing resources rests with the relevant public service body and its parent Department. Public service organisations must fully use all mechanisms set out in the public service reform plan for discharging work, including reorganisation and redeployment of staff. Only after this will the issue of recruitment for current or emerging business needs arise. Should a Department identify a potential exception to the moratorium on recruitment the sanction of my Department must then be sought. Exceptions to the moratorium may be granted on the following basis: where statutory posts must be filled for legal reasons; where failure to fill posts would result in a breach of EU or international regulations and impact upon exports, etc.; in safety-related posts where a failure to fill the post could leave the State open to potential legal liabilities or for security reasons; specialist and technical posts that ensure a continuity of operations such as legal officers, laboratory staff, maritime safety staff, etc.; and where continuity of front-line services must be ensured. In the case of the education and health sectors, a number of grades are exempt from the moratorium in order to ensure vital services are maintained.
Each sector in the public service has been establishing its own strategic workforce planning group to ensure sectoral employers develop plans to deal with the operational and strategic consequences arising from staffing reductions in the coming years. The sectoral groups are liaising with the central strategic workforce planning forum under my Department.
That is the script the Minister brought to the Chamber approximately three months ago. No new information has been given today. That, in itself, is disappointing because the purpose of this last oral question session with the Minister before 29 February is to elicit information on what will happen when we know thousands will leave front-line services. The Minister has given no indications and has read out the list of statutory posts and the various obligations required to be met. He read it out ad nauseam during the course of last year. It would have been helpful if he had provided information relevant to what would happen in January and February. We are in a new year and expect new information.
I want to ask the Minister about front-line services. Essentially, I will concentrate on the nursing grade which was not referred to in the document. The Minister referred to grades in the health and education sectors but not nurses. I listened on the car radio today to a consultant from the Mid-Western Regional Hospital in Limerick who said that if nurses were not replaced, it might lead to fatalities in the maternity ward in the hospital. What further notice does the Minister require than a consultant saying this about a hospital?
The Minister referred to safety issues. What does he consider to be a safety issue? If HIQA was indicate to the HSE that it must have so many nursing staff in a particular ward, would that be considered to be a safety issue and thus allow one to breach the embargo forthwith?
The Minister set up the strategic workforce planning group and there is a planning forum under his Department, but he has not given any outcomes of what is happening in regard to these bodies. He has indicated today and previously that people were asked to give three months notice. He, everyone in the public service and I know that the majority are not required to give three months notice. All a public servant is required to do is to give one month's notice. People will give notice up to next week.
That is true.
The figures outlined by the Minister are not correct. I accept some of those who indicated they would retire will not do so, but more may give notice next week. What will the Minister do, especially with nurses in front-line services?
I wish to be as helpful to the Deputy and the House as I possibly can. I will take the last question first.
The Deputy is correct. People may not have given notice yet because, by virtue of their contractual arrangements, they are only required to give four weeks notice. I asked, as I repeatedly said in the House last year, for three months notice in order that we could make advance plans. Most public servants do not want the situation to worsen as they leave and the vast majority with an intention of leaving have already given notice. I wish to be as helpful as I can such in giving a breakdown of the data available to date. However, the Deputy is correct; some people who have not yet given notice will apply to leave and I dare say there are many on the list who will withdraw their application. The figures, therefore, are tentative and the Deputy is correct to that extent.
I understand that in the education sector approximately 2,000 have indicated an interest in leaving, of whom 1,500 are teachers. In the Civil Service the number is approximately 794; in local authorities, 730; the Defence Forces, 192; and the Garda Síochána, 297, giving a total of 4,014. Between September and the end of February in the health service, the indicated number so far is in the order of 3,500.
I have indicated that I will be flexible in seeking to ensure that front line services are protected. I informed the committee when the Deputy was present last year that, although the full year retirements might amount to 9,000, we would indicate that up to 3,000 people could be recruited into the public service. We want to do that in a focused way that meets the criteria we have set and I would be happy to discuss the matter with the committee. We have strategic planning groups in each sector to ensure that front line services are protected as far as possible.
Despite the fact that the head count reduction is the Minister's main achievement, as he sees it, in public sector reform, it is a disorganised and potentially damaging approach towards reducing the gross pay bill. The Minister is on the record as saying that the full reduction he envisages will reduce the gross pay bill by €2.5 billion from 2008 levels.
Some €3.5 billion if one counts the levy.
Will the Minister square this assertion with the fact that, in the next breath, he conceded that, while 9,000 individuals may exit the service, recruiting 3,000 more might be necessary? How has the Minister calculated the level of savings? Will he clarify whether he has taken account of the cost of pensions for those leaving the service in his global figure?
On the face of it, the Minister seems confident - I am unsure why - that none of this will have an adverse impact on front line services. Anyone working in the public service knows full well that haemorrhaging of this scale will have a negative consequence. The Minister stated that he was prepared to lift the moratorium and sanction appointments. Only his Department can do that. What will be the sanction process? The payments made to Ministers' advisers come to mind. We were told that breaches of the pay ceiling needed to be sanctioned by his Department, but he was quite liberal and sanctioned 14 such breaches. Will he assure us that he will be equally accommodating in the protection of front line service provision?
I do not expect any acknowledgment or praise from the Deputy opposite and I am never disappointed. The head count reduction is a strategic part of the Government's plan to reduce numbers, given that it constitutes a permanent reduction in pay. If one merely reduces pay, a choice that some Deputies on both sides of the House have indicated their preference for, it could develop back. Reducing in quantum terms the total number working in the public service is a permanent reduction. It is necessary, as we will borrow €1.5 billion per month during 2012 to pay for these services. We want to do this in a strategic way.
We have managed to make radical reforms in a range of areas. I am disappointed that there is no acknowledgment of the significant, ground-breaking reform programme that I presented to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts last year. It entailed 200 individual actions and 70 programmes. I have set up a reform office in my Department and recruited an external director to drive reform. We can bring about radical change while protecting front line services. Unlike in many other European jurisdictions, Ireland has no national strikes, working to rule, and so on. We are getting on with the job while making changes.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to answer all of the list of questions. We have quantified the amount of money involved. The cost of pensions would be a real cost in any event. These people have worked up to 40 years and the planning for their pensions have been under way for those 40 years. It is not a new cost that was previously unaccounted for or unknown. It would have to be paid in any event, perhaps in one year or two, because the full complement of contributions has been made by these public servants. The strategy on which the Government has embarked, its reform agenda, is comprehensive, ground-breaking and different. I expect it to bear great fruit in the coming years.
In regard to the additional staff to be recruited in the course of the year, it is my understanding that the majority will be teachers filling the vacancies that arise in schools throughout the State. Will the Minister give a commitment that where there are problems in front line services due to reduced numbers of nurses in the health sector, he will consider allowing additional recruitment? I know he will not say "Yes", but I hope, on behalf of the people, that he will give it favourable consideration. It would set people's minds somewhat at ease.
The Minister did not indicate the process of sanction from his Department. I echo Deputy Fleming's call that the Minister keep his eye squarely on the front line. Is the €3.5 billion saving he asserts net of pension costs? Does it take account of the necessity to recruit up to 3,000 new entrants to the service?
In regard to education, the Minister for Education and Skills has announced that where teachers retiring between the end of last year and the end of February 2012 are teaching examination classes, either at junior or leaving certificate level, they may continue on the payroll up to the conclusion of the examinations. It is important that we put people's minds at ease in that regard.
In the case of front line services in the health sector, the Department of Health has its own team examining this issue. We want to utilise the Croke Park agreement to the fullest in terms of redeployment, moving people from areas where there is no pressure to areas where they are needed. That is the first port of call. We will ensure there is flexibility that will allow front line services to be preserved.
In regard to the two points raised by Deputy McDonald, we have already down-sized the public service by the order of 26,000 since 2008.
I am aware of that.
Our ambition is to effect a reduction of an additional 27,500 in the coming years. By 2015 that quantum will, together with the levy, accrue a saving of €3.5 billion on the pensions bill in gross terms. The pensions element is accounted for separately and would have to be paid in any event.
48Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on comments made by officials representing the Troika during its meeting with members of the Technical Group on 17 January last that any money raised from the sale of State assets will be used to service the country’s debt and not for investment in job creation as he has previously stated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3808/12]
The troika views asset disposal as a structural reform measure, intended to improve efficiency and competition in the economy while offering the prospect of reducing overall debt levels. The Government, views asset disposal as offering the potential to release value from State assets for use in employment generating initiatives in the economy, as set out clearly in the programme for Government.
In our most recent discussions, which concluded last week, the troika signalled that in the context of Government pursuing an ambitious programme of asset disposal, it would be prepared to agree to the retention of a sizeable amount of proceeds from such disposal for investment in job creation initiatives in the economy. This remains the policy of the Government.
When colleagues from the Technical Group and I asked representatives of the troika during our recent meeting about the proceeds of sales of State assets, we were told that, as per the bailout programme, the initial plan was that the moneys would go towards repaying the State's debts. However, they further indicated that if there is potential for the creation of "real" jobs - I am not sure what they meant by this - they may consider some of the money being allocated for that purpose. In principle, there is not much benefit in selling assets at this time given that there is no market for them. The troika said it was not interested in fire sales - which suggests this is more ideologically driven than anything else - and is looking not alone for money but value. Also, it appears to be of the view that the private sector does things better than the public sector.
A question, Deputy.
I would like to read into the record a quotation from Dr. Donal Palcic of the Department of Economics, University of Limerick.
It is not in order for the Deputy to do that. This is Question Time. I again remind the Deputy that he must ask a question of the Minister.
Does the Minister approve of the sale of State assets and does he believe the private sector does things better than the public sector?
There were a number of questions and assertions in Deputy Wallace's contribution. A programme for Government was negotiated by the two parties in Government, namely, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. People will be aware that both parties have different perspectives in regard to the sale of State assets. However, we entered government in unprecedented economic times. We are in an incredible hole. The unified view of this Government is that we need to grow ourselves out of this terrible mess we inherited from our predecessor government and we need to create jobs. However, we need resources to create jobs and do not domestically have those resources.
NewERA, put forward during the last general election by Fine Gael, looks at what happened in the early years of this State when capital was not available for job creation and public capital was used to create the ESB, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus and so on. We need to have capital for the next generation. The NewERA entity has been established, as has the strategic investment fund. We need to have access to funds to resource these entities to create jobs, which is what we are doing.
The previous Government accepted the troika's view that money had to be used to retire debt simpliciter. We have said “no” to that. It has taken a number of goes at it but we have moved the troika considerably. The word I have used in the response to this parliamentary question is an agreed word with the troika, namely, “sizeable” amounts of money from the sale of State assets can be deployed. Those discussions are ongoing. I can assure the Deputy that there will be no fire sale. We will do what is in the best interests of the economy and jobs.
Any independent economist would argue that the measures taken by this Government since coming into office have not resulted in jobs. There has been a decline in job numbers. The measures being taken are geared towards rebalancing the books to suit the fiscal arrangements. It is not honest to say that the Government has worked towards job creation. There is no investment and the banks are closed to people wishing to obtain loans.
The Minister did not respond to my question in regard to whether he believes the private sector can do things better than the public sector.
Thank you, Deputy.
When will the Minister publish the report of the interdepartmental group which identified State assets and commercial State companies that could be sold and when will he publish the valuations of the NewERA group, both of which were considered by the Economic Management Council of which he is a member?
To answer the last question first, the Deputy will forgive me if I allow the Government to consider those reports first. As soon as the deliberative process has been completed, the appropriate documentation will be published.
The Deputy is wrong in indicating that we have a fiscal view that is only interested in balancing the budget. The first thing we did was get permission to use €1 billion in a job creating initiative. That is one of the first actions we took on taking up office. We have to balance the books. There is no question about that.
Where are the jobs?
Some 9,000 jobs were created last year through that initiative.
How many were lost?
Some 25,000 jobs were lost.
It is easy to be the naysayers and to engage in the Darby O'Gill economics that we do not have to balance the books and can continue to borrow €1.5 billion.
I did not say that.
I do not know who is going to provide us with that money. The only people on earth willing to give us money, at the rates affordable to this State, is the troika, which has laid down hard and tough measures with which we must live. We can tell them, as I heard some of the individuals opposite suggest, to take a hike. If one wished to play Russian roulette with this country and its economy and destroy its economy, that is the sort of take one would have. However, one must be honest with people in this regard. The Government is working towards reducing Ireland's deficit to 3% by 2015 and has laid out the manner in which this will be done. At the same time, however, it will take innovative job-creating measures. Another jobs strategy will be published shortly by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
Another one.
Austerity does not create jobs.
Moreover, the Pathways to Work programme will be published shortly and will be implemented by the Minister for Social Protection. In addition, I constantly am seeking innovative ways to access capital for sustainable projects to create sustainable jobs, and this is what the Government will continue to do.
No jobs.
49Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is satisfied that the Croke Park Agreement is achieving the necessary reform and savings; if he will outline the savings required under the agreement for 2011 and 2012; if there are any circumstances under which he envisages a reopening of the Croke Park Agreement if there is a deepening of the Eurozone crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3941/12]
The implementation body for the Croke Park agreement published its first annual progress report in June 2011. The report examined the savings and reforms delivered in the first year of the agreement and found that sustainable pay bill savings in the order of €289 million had been achieved during the review period. It also reported that solid and measurable progress had been made on implementing the action plans for reform in each sector, while pointing to certain issues that needed to be accelerated. The interim report published by the body in November provided further evidence of progress on the delivery of change and reform right across the public service.
The second annual review of the agreement is scheduled to take place after Easter 2012 and will assess the savings achieved in the second year of the agreement. As before, it also will scrutinise the level of progress being made on implementing the reform programmes in each sector, and I look forward to the outcome of that review.
The Government has indicated that the public service agreement represents a key enabler in meeting its fiscal targets under the obligations arising from the EU-IMF joint programme of assistance. The quarterly returns made to date by the Government under the programme on public service numbers and the pay bill have indicated that the numbers of public servants are falling and are on track to meet the targets set by the Government. As I announced in my Dáil speech, the Government has set a target of €400 million in payroll savings this year. As I have stated, the Government aims to reduce the overall cost of paying public servants to deliver public services by €3.5 billion or approximately 20% in the seven-year period to 2015. This will be achieved through substantially reduced numbers as well as through the pay cuts that were applied in 2010 and through ongoing pension related deductions. The Croke Park agreement enables these ongoing reductions in pay bills to be delivered on a planned basis in an environment of industrial peace.
The Government reaffirms its commitments under the Croke Park agreement on pay rates and job security for serving public servants. I have stated repeatedly that these commitments are contingent on delivery of the necessary flexibilities and reforms that will be required. Paragraph 1.28 of the Croke Park agreement states: "The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration." While I do not wish to speculate about what might happen into the future, I have no proposals to invoke that clause.
I thank the Minister. A few minutes ago, the Minister referred to the Darby O'Gill school of economics, of which he is the best exponent present on this matter. The Minister has stated his target for payroll savings under the Croke Park deal for 2012, as announced by him on budget day, is €400 million. However, he omitted to mention the cost of €600 million in lump sums to be paid this year. Although he lectured Members a moment ago about balancing books, I repeat my main criticism of the Minister, which is he only ever gives half the picture. He mentions the savings but does not mention the cost of achieving those savings. This year, he will spend the guts of €1 billion to achieve these savings. Pensions must be paid to those who will retire from 1 March, as they no longer will be in employment, and there will be lump sum payments. Consequently, it will cost approximately €1 billion to bring about the aforementioned staff reductions at the end of February.
A question please, Deputy.
In a nutshell, what is the Minister's definition of success? I could be glib, as are some Members, by complaining about the Croke Park agreement in this Chamber. However, one should acknowledge the remarkable level of industrial peace that exists. What is the Minister's definition of success and in what circumstances would he pull the trapdoor and seek a return to the drawing board?
First, I welcome the Deputy's support for the Croke Park agreement. It is important because I have heard many people assert the agreement is an impediment to progress. I would like to be informed as to what the Croke Park agreement is preventing from happening. If people are seeking a straightforward pay cut across the entire public service, let them spell this out.
I am not sure what the Deputy is saying about the cost of pensions and lump sums. Is he saying we should not pay them?
The Minister should provide us with the figures.
I provided all the figures when I appeared before the relevant committee and made sure to disaggregate everything. The reality is that these are costs which will have to be met. The people in question have, by and large, worked for up to 40 years in the public service. They have made their pension contributions in the expectation of obtaining both a lump sum and a pension at the end of their careers. This aspect is always factored in when costings are being made. I accept that some of the cost has been brought forward.
The target of the Government - this represents a fundamental alteration of the policy which obtained for the previous ten years - is to downsize the public service by a further 27,500 between now and 2015. The downsizing to which I refer will be permanent. We are going to do things differently and, as a result, greater productivity and flexibility will be required. We have established a programme to achieve this. I have laid before the committee of which the Deputy is a member all the information on the implementation plans we are pursuing in order to develop a more productive, cost-efficient, efficient and less wasteful public service of which we can be proud. The Deputy knows this full well.
I agree with the Deputy that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In that context, we will be obliged to ensure the various things to which I refer will be implemented. We are facing into a very difficult couple of months, when the quantum of people in question will leave the public service. This will test the level of flexibility we will achieve under the Croke Park agreement in order to ensure front-line services will be maintained in the absence of additional costs.
I have only one point to make on this matter. The Minister continually provides information on the gross savings to be made from the point of view of payroll. We know that people are entitled to their lump sums and pensions. All I ask is that the Minister provide the net figure for savings to the taxpayer. He continually refers to the savings to be made in one little sub-silo in his Department, namely, public sector pay; however, he has not mentioned the additional costs that will accrue from the payment of lump sums. When he speaks on this matter, he should indicate what will be the net figure for savings to the taxpayer, not that which relates to sub-silo to which I refer.
I have been extremely transparent in the figures I have provided. However, I do not believe in double accounting. I will discuss the matter of the overall cost of pensions in detail following the February deadline in order that everyone will be aware of the exact position. The lump sum payments will be a once-off cost but the payroll saving will be permanent. I am not thinking in terms of 2012 alone; I am also considering what will be required for recovery and beyond. I am interested in developing a much more efficient, restructured and revitalised public service which will be managed differently. The Department and the relevant office are driving the process in this regard. As we unveil new initiatives relating to shared management, better procurement which is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes and so on, I will come before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to discuss them. We are going to make matters better.
50Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the fairness and sustainability of higher-end public sector wages in the context of recent reports showing them to be significantly above their European equivalents and reports that the perception that Irish higher-end public sector workers are significantly higher paid than their counterparts in other EU countries is an impediment to advancing negotiations with the Troika. [4176/12]
As Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I am extremely conscious of the fiscal crisis facing Ireland and the loss of economic sovereignty which has resulted from the economic mismanagement of the country in previous years. We continue to work in consultation and partnership with the troika in implementing the EU-IMF programme which provides an agreed but difficult fiscal path for the Government and the people. The public service pay bill is an important constituent element of the programme on which a substantial part of the burden of adjustment must fall.
While comparisons of public service pay rates across countries are not widespread, it is the case that the best available figures, those published by the OECD as part of its Government at a Glance 2010 report, do not show Irish public service pay rates to be significantly out of line with those in other OECD countries across a broad range of disciplines on a purchasing power parity basis. Furthermore, the statistics on which the OECD based its report predate the pay reductions applied to all public servants, on a progressive basis, under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2010. The pay reductions applied to higher paid public servants under that legislation were based on the recommendations of the review group on higher remuneration in the public sector which conducted a cross-country comparative exercise on pay rates for certain senior grades. On foot of this, the then Government cut the pay of the highest paid public servants by between 8% and 20%. A further reduction of 10% was applied to the pay rates of new recruits at entry level across the entire public service from 1 January last year. Furthermore, to help ensure pay expectations for higher paid public servants are set appropriately and having regard to the resources available to the State, the Government has accepted my proposal to apply a pay ceiling in respect of new appointments at the highest levels in the public service and new appointments at CEO level in the commercial semi-State sector. This will bring the pay levels of senior public servants into line with those which the Government has accepted for itself.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Government aims to reduce the overall cost of paying public servants to deliver public services by €3.5 billion by 2015, or some 20% over the seven year period from the peak in 2008. That will be achieved through substantially reduced numbers, as well as through the pay cuts applied in 2010 and the ongoing pension-related deduction. The reductions in the public service pay bill remain on target and have not proved an impediment to our discussions or negotiations with the troika, a fact acknowledged by it last week on the completion of its review.
I welcome debate on these important matters but such debate should be honest and transparent. For those questioning public service pay policy, this requires them to put forward their policy alternatives for consideration. These alternatives must have regard to those working within the public service who are called upon to deliver more services, in difficult circumstances, in an environment in which resources have never been so stretched and who are themselves taxpayers, mortgage holders and participants in the wider economy.
There were two parts to my question. Does the Minister believe it is fair that higher paid public sector workers are paid significantly more than their private sector counterparts and their European counterparts?
Is that a fact?
Does he believe it is an impediment to debt restructuring? His answer said that they are not paid more, because the OECD report states that they are not paid more in some areas. The OECD report very clearly states that at the higher end - the Minister should read the report he is quoting - they are paid more. The ECB report, which came out just a few weeks ago, stated that the per hour public sector premium is 42%. The ESRI came out with a report a few months ago which showed that when pensions are included, the premium is 25%. All of the data clearly and unambiguously states that at the higher end, our public sector workers are paid significantly more. To give an example from an area in which I have worked, our medical consultants are paid about twice what they are paid in the UK, twice what they are paid in Germany, and more than twice what they are paid in France. Higher public servants are paid significantly more, so the Minister's assertion that they are not is simply not true. In fairness, I think he knows that.
I asked the second part of the question about this being an impediment to debt restructuring for two reasons. First, I heard an anecdote from one of our own MEPs who stated that senior French civil servants were incredulous that we were sending out officials to negotiate debt write downs who were paid twice what they are paid to run a country which is a fraction the size of one of their provinces. When the Technical Group met the troika last week, they stated repeatedly that it was very interesting that we are quite rightly looking for debt write downs, yet many of those looking for them are some of the best paid civil servants in Europe.
I would like the Minister to address the two issues. I ask him please not to restate that they are not paid more. All of the data shows that they are paid more. My question is this. Is it fair that they are paid more? On the basis of his involvement in the troika negotiations, does the Minister believe it is an impediment to us getting a debt write down, as the troika has suggested?
It is always difficult when the Deputy has prepared his answer before he hears my answer, as he has prepared his rebuttal.
Can the Minister answer directly?
Order, please.
I have given the Deputy the data as I have it in front of me. When we went into Government, I believed that the highest levels of the public service were paid too much. That is why in our first act, we set a new pay ceiling for the Taoiseach, for Ministers and for Ministers of State, which was significantly lower than the remuneration of our predecessors. We then set that ceiling across the public service. A couple of years ago, a Secretary General in My Department would have been earning €285,000. He is now earning €200,000. The €85,000 cut is an extraordinary reduction, and we have applied that across the board.
I am as anxious as anybody in this House to deal with this. We cannot take the ground from under people and tell them that their income will be halved overnight, given that they have contractual arrangements. The Deputy knows that we have constitutional property rights in this State. We have done it in a remarkably efficient way over the past 12 months. The Deputy is right that we have more to do.
As a former health Minister, I have looked at the issue of medical consultants' pay. We are finding great difficulty in recruiting medical consultants in Ireland. If our pay rates were so generous in comparison to the UK, there would be a queue out the door, but there is not. We have not been able to recruit medical consultants, particularly outside the major urban centres. I agree with the Deputy that they are paid too much. We need more transparency in respect of their public and private pay. All of this is a work in progress, and if the Deputy looks objectively at what we have achieved in 12 months, he will see that we have radically transformed the platform in which more progress can be made.
I accept that the Government has made progress. My concern is with the Croke Park agreement. We have heard much back and forth on this. The Government has taken a position which is that in order to reduce the pay bill significantly, we are going to fire, retire or down-size. Regardless of the mechanism used, we will have fewer workers. What we will not do is pay less. At a time when we are trying to keep people off the live register it seems to be a strange absolutist commitment not to touch wages. The only way the wage bill will be reduced is through having fewer workers. This does not seem to be very sensible.
During the troika negotiations has the Minister come across, as the Technical Group did last week, higher end public sector pay - accepting the changes and progress being made - being an impediment to write-downs?
I will answer the last question first because it is very important and the answer to which is no. I have dealt with the troika on the issue of public pay policy and its members have no difficulty with the policy of the Government as long as we achieve the extra payroll savings set out, with which they are in agreement.
I have dealt with the issue of top level pay. Let us consider what has happened. There has been a pay reduction of 9% at clerical officer level; a teacher has experienced a reduction of 12%; a staff nurse, 10.5%; and a garda, 11%; while a middle ranking civil servant has had a pay cut of 12.5%. These reductions are on top of the levies paid and everything else. One should not dismiss the pain the public sector has endured.
I am not.
The Minister is speaking.
With regard to the top level-----
They are only on €200,000; God help them.
-----I have indicated that in some instances there has been a cut of more than 30%. On a voluntary basis, one senior public servant who has asked not to be named has taken a cut of more than 50% to meet the pay norms set because some of the pay norms set in advance of our entering government were unacceptable. We have moved remarkably, but we cannot look on public servants as an amorphous group to be squeezed to solve all of our problems. We have an agreement, namely, the Croke Park agreement, under which we are bringing about objectively significant and radical reforms. It will take time for them to be bedded down. If we want them to be embraced and not resisted by working to rule and strikes, we need a two-sided agreement. For the Government's part, we have stated that for as long as there is full engagement with the radical reform agenda, redeployment and the other measures we want to take, we will not cut pay further. This is the two-sided agreement which will serve the interests of the State.
