Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total cost which has accrued to his Department in respect of the payment of the benchmarking pay awards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30245/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 9 November 2010
Ceisteanna (1)
Freagraí ó Béal (28 píosaí cainte)
There were two reports from the public service benchmarking body. The increases recommended in the first report of the body in June 2002 were implemented in my Department as follows: 25% of the recommended increase was paid in June 2003, with effect from 1 December 2001, and the total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000; 50% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 January 2004, at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year; and the final 25% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The full-year cost of the increases in 2006 was approximately €800,000.
The second report of the public service benchmarking body in December 2007 recommended an increase of 1.1% for the grade of principal officer. No other increase was recommended in respect of general Civil Service grades. No payment has been made to date by my Department in regard to this recommendation.
In respect of the Department of the Taoiseach and generally, does the Taoiseach think it satisfactory that pay awards were given without efficiencies being made contingent upon them?
All the payments made were based on various efficiencies and improvements.
Does he have a list of the efficiencies that resulted in his own Department from the payment of the awards recommended in the 2002 and 2007 reports? Can he give instances of increased efficiencies as a result of the payment of benchmarking awards in his Department?
I do not have that information before me but I make the general point that industrial peace continued throughout that period. Certain payments were made where the bases for them were adhered to and where they were not adhered to, the payments were not made. The full year cost of benchmarking was in the region of €1.2 billion. Deputy Kenny will be aware that the changes we introduced last year, which are being implemented on the basis of the Croke Park agreement, will have a full year effect of €1.8 billion.
The Taoiseach does not have the information before him because there is none. As Minister for Finance and in his current position, the Taoiseach presided over huge levels of waste and cost inflation in public spending and a failed value for money strategy without even the smallest of reforms. The discussion that has been ongoing in the public domain over the past several weeks about bank time and the cashing of pay checks, which are paid electronically, should have taken place in 2002 and 2005. Was that issue raised in the context of the benchmarking awards paid to the civil servants in his Department?
I do not have that information before me but I can get it for the Deputy.
Has he commenced a review of the traditional privilege days at Christmas and Easter? Is that issue being considered as another area of reform?
These are issues which I can answer if specific questions are tabled. I was asked to give a specific reply on the cost of the first and second benchmarking awards in my Department. If the Deputy is suggesting that benchmarking was provided on the basis of no change, he is not correct. The Revenue on-line service was a result of the benchmarking process, as was the question of stability and change in the education curriculum. One could set out a range of reforms and improvements which resulted from benchmarking. Where a delay occurred in implementing agreed changes, payments were delayed until the changes were delivered.
I agree with the Taoiseach that changes were introduced in some areas. Revenue is one such example and that is both significant and welcome. He referred to the Department of Education and Skills. Last week, we saw evidence that €300 million set aside for building schools was not being spent by that Department. What sort of benchmarking progress was made in that instance? Now we hear the money will be spent before the end of the year. What efficiencies are being made on distributing moneys voted for capital works? Thousands of small contractors are out of business despite being willing and able to tender at prices which are much lower than was previously the case.
Deputy, this question relates to the Department of the Taoiseach.
It relates to benchmarking. Surely the process or system in the Department of Education and Skills could have been streamlined in the last eight years to allow money voted through this House for capital works that are necessary for thousands of school places, and for children and their teachers, to be implemented. We should not be hanging on, halfway through November, because €300 million has yet to be spent by the Department of Education and Skills and may have to be sent back, except for the bit that is retained.
The Deputy needs to inform himself of the facts. A great deal of the capital spend in the education sector takes place at the back end of the year, when payments are made. The significant ICT moneys that are now being dispensed also come out of that capital spend. Multi-annual capital budgeting came into vogue under this Administration. When the Deputy was last in office, the problem was that schools did not know what allocations they would get from one year to the next. That is probably one of the reasons so little got done. We are seeing excellent value for money in the education sector. Our carry-over facility is enabling us to deal with tendering prices on a multi-annual basis. These are good examples of value for money, which was mentioned by the Deputy. Money is being spent in a planned way as projects which have been approved for construction to begin are being completed. The devolved grants scheme, which was introduced under this Administration, and the summer works scheme——
They are good schemes.
——have given small builders huge opportunities that did not exist before.
I accept that.
Hundreds of schools have benefited from the schemes, which help small builders to obtain contracts for public works, such as necessary improvements in schools throughout the country.
The Taoiseach made reference to the two benchmarking reports, the first of which was paid in full. He said that the second report, which was produced in 2007, has not been paid. Do I take it that the 2007 agreement has been set aside, particularly in light of the contents of the Croke Park agreement, which commits to no further pay increases before 2014? When the arrangement whereby public servants are given half an hour off to cash their cheques was raised and became an issue recently, I was one of those who were surprised that it had not been weeded out of the system in return for earlier benchmarking payments. Can I ask why that was not done? Why was the benchmarking agreement not availed of to bring that practice to an end? When we asked questions about the Croke Park agreement in mid-October, the Taoiseach told the House that action plans had been submitted. Can he give the House specific details of the proposals in the action plan that has been submitted by the Department of the Taoiseach?
I do not want to comment on the position of any individual union on the specific matter raised by the Deputy. It is important to note that the public service unions have agreed to the terms of the Croke Park agreement. Moreover, they have been looking for details of the management's proposals for achieving savings and efficiencies in the cost of delivering public services. Officials at management level within the Civil Service have given details of the proposals they intend to pursue to secure efficiencies and greater productivity to the Civil Service unions for consultation in advance of submission to the implementation body. The unions have also agreed to a fast-track binding mechanism for the resolution of disputes. I anticipate that Civil Service management will avail of those mechanisms where necessary.
I was also asked about the various sectoral action plans, with specific reference to the savings to be achieved under the Department of the Taoiseach's action plan under the Croke Park agreement. The Department employs 191 whole-time equivalents. It has reduced its overall staff numbers by 10% since January 2008. We will continue to reduce staff numbers by a further 2% below the employment control framework set by the Department of Finance, while maintaining the quality of the services we provide. Some 35 staff members have been redeployed to other Departments since January 2008. We will continue to actively facilitate the reallocation of staff to those areas of greatest need, in accordance with the redeployment arrangements set out in the agreement. The Department has already discontinued five of the six bodies under its direct control. The remaining body, the National Economic and Social Development Office, will continue to be subject to positive transformation. Vacancies at assistant secretary level will continue to be filled by open competition and consideration will be given to open competition for posts at other grades, where appropriate, for example, where specialist skills or qualifications are required. Merit-based competitions are used for the majority of promotions and they will be the norm for all future promotions. Staffing levels and structures will be reviewed in consultation with staff. The Department operates extensive opening hours, a standard 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., with 24-hour opening, as required, and these will be maintained in the context of that review. Between 2007 and 2010, the total budget was reduced by 18.2%, including a reduction of 8.3% in the pay budget. In the period 2011 to 2014, we will achieve further reductions of 14.4% in the total budget, including 11.4% in 2011, and 4.2% in the pay budget, including 1.2% in 2011.
What is the status of the 2007 benchmarking report? The Taoiseach did not refer to this in his reply. Has the report been stood down?
It only related to increases of 1.1% for the principal officer grade. Other Civil Service grades were not affected by it and, therefore, that is the only aspect of it that is relevant. It is the only substantive part of the report. The Croke Park Agreement, from the date of its signing up to 2014, has set out a review mechanism for spring 2011 and an annual review thereafter and, in respect of any significant savings that will be provided, consideration can be given in the context of those reviews to salaries of less than €35,000.
The programme for Government has a very explicit commitment to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools. Is the Taoiseach in a position to give us confirmation and affirmation that there will be no measures in the budget on 7 December that will in any way dilute that commitment or see an expansion of the pupil-teacher ratio? It is quite particular. The programme states: "...No further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools in the lifetime of this Government." I ask the Taoiseach to rule out any measure in the budget that would increase the ratio. The programme also states that the standard capitation grant will be maintained. Can the Taoiseach indicate——
The Deputy is straying somewhat from the substance of the question.
I would not have thought so. Surely, this is within the bounds of what I have tabled in Questions Nos. 5 and 6.
We are on Question No. 1.
I beg the Ceann Comhairle's pardon. I apologise to the Taoiseach. I believed we were dealing with the programme for Government —mea culpa.
The Deputy was fast out the traps.
I will put his question for him.