David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I wish to pick up on the Minister's response to Deputy Calleary on public sector pay. This is not about the rights and wrongs of any policy choice made by a Minister; it is about respect for this committee, in the first instance, and a recognition on the part of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and, hopefully, the Minister for Finance, that we have work to do. This is a new committee. Our job is to scrutinise spending and decisions made by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Government. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the decision, €120 million is a great deal of money; it is not small change. The Minister says this can be achieved through efficiencies. The Minister has a responsibility to come before the committee and explain to us what exactly is meant by that. I imagine the Minister has been presented with papers by his officials on background information around how exactly that money can be saved and exactly what efficiencies he is talking about and in which Departments. Is it across all Departments? We have a right to that information and those papers. If we are to be in a position to hold the Minister to account properly on the one hand and to help and assist on the other, then we must have the information promised to be able to scrutinise properly.

The Minister referred to €120 million and said the saving can be achieved through efficiencies. That is a cause of concern for me and possibly for others on this committee. I am respectfully asking that any background information provided to the Minister with regard to how this money can be achieved is also given to us.

The Minister might also explain why the issue of equal work for equal pay was not dealt with. Earlier, the Minister mentioned the need for industrial relations harmony and holding the line on the Lansdowne Road agreement and so on. He will understand that at the heart of many industrial relations disputes in recent times has been the core issue of equal work for equal pay. This relates to those who came into the system post 2011. We have consistently asked the Minister and the Department to indicate how much it would cost to return to a single-tier pay structure to deal with this issue. The Minister has been unable to provide us with the figures. He has been unable to sign up to the principle of it or even give an indication that he will do it over a reasonable timeframe. Again, I am wondering why this issue was put on the long finger. It has caused tensions in classrooms, Garda stations and all manner of public sector workplaces because there is a two-tier parallel pay structure in place. Why was that not considered when the Minister was examining the Lansdowne Road agreement?

The Minister referred to capital spend. At the weekend an opinion piece by the director general of the HSE referred to the need for €9 billion of increased capital spend in health care in hospitals. The Cassells report refers to the need for billions more in capital spend. We have a housing emergency. Obviously, we need to build more houses and we need a great deal more capital spend on housing. I do not see anything in what the Minister has said today to suggest there is any urgency from the Government when it comes to investing in these areas. The Minister commented on how this was not about numbers but about people and services. However, the Minister said as much against the backdrop of people in hospital trolleys in record numbers, a dire need to invest in our schools and third and fourth level infrastructure and the need for the State to build housing. How does the Minister expect to be able to meet the capital demands that exist without more flexibility? How we can do that and continue with the tax-cutting agenda that he started in the last budget on top of previous budgets? I cannot see how the Minister can square the two. When representatives of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council were before the committee, they said the only way we could do it in reality was to increase taxes on those who perhaps can afford to pay more, where possible. Obviously, the Minister is not in favour of that. His party has set its face against it and is in favour of cutting taxes. How is that possible in the face of what we now seeing with regard to housing, health care and other areas? I have a supplementary question that I will put when the Minister responds, but I will take the Minister's responses first.