Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first item on the agenda is the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 12 - Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Dáil by Order of 20 November referred the Estimate to the Select Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform, pursuant to Standing Orders 82A(3)(c) and (6)(a) and 159 (3), which shall report back to the Dáil no later than 29 November the following Supplementary Estimate for Vote 12 - Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for public service reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, and his officials. I call on him to make his opening statement.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Chairman and members for not being exactly on time.

The superannuation and retired allowances Vote provides primarily for pensions and lump sum payments for civil servants and pension payments for dependants. It is a Vote that is particularly difficult to estimate as the majority of persons covered by the Vote may, once they reach the age of 60 years, exercise an option to retire at any stage before reaching their compulsory retirement age of 65 years. Eligible persons may opt to retire even earlier than 60 years under the terms of cost neutral early retirement.

Persons are also, I am glad to say, generally living longer and therefore in on-going receipt of a pension for a longer post retirement period, which we all welcome.

The 2012 gross Estimate for Vote 12 the subject of the Supplementary Estimate, was just over €500 million. This was based on existing pensions in payments; figures received from Departments on their projected retirement numbers for 2012 plus contingency and provision for scheme leavers in 2012 as follows: some 18,636 pensions in payment at the end of December 2011; some 1,400 officers estimated to retire in 2012; and 600 pensions leaving the payroll in 2012. There will be a net estimated increase of 800 on the pension payroll by the end of 2012, or an estimated total of 19,436 pensions in payment at the end of December 2012.

In terms of the estimated numbers retiring in 2012, we had regard to the level of retirements anticipated to take place prior to 29 February 2012 as persons availed of the final months of the grace period whereby their retirement benefits would be calculated with reference to their salaries at 31 December 2009, that is before the introduction of the pay reductions imposed with effect from 1 January 2010 under the provisions of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009.

Having regard to the foregoing it is to be noted that the 2012 gross Estimate of just over €500 million for Vote 12 was set at 16% higher than the 2011 outturn of €432 million. However, despite best efforts in estimation, including the provision of a significant contingency over the numbers provided by Departments in late 2011 as to their estimations of retirements in 2012, it has transpired that the level of retirements in 2012 has significantly exceeded estimation and therefore is now in the region of 20,000 pensions in payment, over 560 in excess of the original 2012 net full end of year estimate of 19,436. The numbers who retired were greater and as a consequence we need an additional €25 million to add to the subhead for the purposes of payment to the end of 2012.

The higher than anticipated numbers retiring has an impact on the A1 subhead of the Vote from which pensions are paid but, most important, on the A4 subhead from which most once-off lump sum payments are made. On 22 November more than €134 million had been expended from subhead A4, where the 2012 Estimate had been €116 million. The reason we are seeking this Supplementary Estimate is because of the greater than expected amount under subhead A4, which is the lump sum subhead in the Vote.

In this context the estimated allocation of just over €500 million gross, published in the Revised Estimates for Public Service 2012 and voted by the House on 21 June 2012, will be exceeded when the December payments of entitlements to retired civil servants and dependants are made to the end of the year. It is estimated that gross expenditure for 2012 may be in the region of €522 million, that is comprised of the €85 million we have expended to date in addition to €32 million for the provision for the remaining two pay period in 2012 and another €5 million which is the anticipated additional lump sum payments.

It is however considered prudent to provide for a sum in excess of €22 million in the event that Departments have underestimated the level of lump sum payments payable before the end of December. In this context, to ensure that the required funding is voted before the excess costs associated with the additional retirements accrue to the Vote, a Supplementary Estimate of €25 million is being sought.

I appreciate that members may ask why the Supplementary Estimate is taking place this late in the year when it would have been known for a number of months that the assumption on which the original Estimate for 2012 had been predicated upon were no longer valid. Seeking a Supplementary Estimate too early in the year, for example in September or October, runs the risk of either under or over-estimating the additional sum required due to the nature of the Vote. It is not a case of seeking a Supplementary Estimate to provide funding to bridge the gap between an actual net increase at a particular point in time during the year over the original full year estimated increase as such a snapshot net increase will fluctuate, either up or down, over the remainder of the year due to a combination of the level of further retirements and the number of deaths.
As an example of the volatility of the Vote, it is to be noted that some 300 new pensions, some of which would be reduced spouses' and children's benefits arising from the death of the pension scheme member, have been put into payment since August. When a former civil servant passes away, his or her spouse is entitled to half of his or her pension, that is effectively a new pension for the purposes of the Vote and that of course is taken care of as well.

As expenditure on this Vote is particularly influenced by the numbers of persons who exercise an option to retire before reaching compulsory retirement age, it would have been difficult to estimate the numbers who might choose to exercise such an option over say a four-month period between September and December of this year. It is therefore only towards the end of the year that a more accurate assessment may be made and an appropriate level of additional funding sought. Even at this late stage, absolute accuracy is not possible as, for example, persons may only now be actively considering whether to retire before the end of the year.

It also must be recognised that while additional funding is being requested for the Vote in 2012, the fact that more people than anticipated have opted to retire this year will have a positive impact on the drive to reduce numbers. I acknowledge that one-off costs are involved when people retire, particularly relating to the payment of lump sums in the year of retirement, but it is clear that when more people retire, the Government makes savings in its pay bill. When the pension lump sum has been paid in the year of retirement, the continuing pension cost is at most 50% of the original pay cost, and even less if the person in question has less than 40 years' reckonable service. It is also to be noted that people retiring after 29 January next - this is referred to as the grace period - will receive pensions based on their current pay level; that is, the reduced level.

I will be happy to answer any questions that members of the committee might have. I appreciate the opportunity the committee has given me in bringing this Supplementary Estimate before it today.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his opening statement. I ask members to confine their questioning to ten or 15 minutes each. Before I call Deputy Sean Fleming, I would like to ask the Minister of State about the headline issue. The annual retirement prediction for 2012 was 19,436. This afternoon, we are discussing 560 retirements that were not anticipated. Have these retirements taken place in line with the reductions that were sought in the overall public sector figure? I assume that figure will be taken into account in 2013, in terms of meeting the overall target for reductions in public sector numbers.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is exactly right. As the Chairman is aware, the Government plans to reduce the total size of the public sector from 320,000 to 282,500. I think the current figure is approximately 290,000. To answer the Chairman's question directly, the additional retirements will be factored into these figures. A greater than expected number of people have retired this year. My understanding is that lump sum payments come from the Departments, which then recoup those moneys through the Vote process. There has been a greater drag on lump sums because a larger number of people have come forward.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I thank him for attending in the absence of the Minister, Deputy Howlin. I will make a few points and ask a few questions.

As the Minister of State said, there are approximately 290,000 people in the public service. I do not know how many public service pensioners there are. Approximately 10% of our 290,000 public servants are civil servants. The round figure is 30,000 or thereabouts. We are dealing with a Supplementary Estimate that relates to the pensions of retired civil servants. As I have said, civil servants account for approximately 10% of public service numbers. Can the Minister of State explain what is being done for the 90% of public servants who do not have the facility whereby a Minister or Minister of State can come in and seek an additional Supplementary Estimate to cover their pensions? If a local authority is finding it difficult to make additional pension payments in the last six weeks of the year, having already made payments to staff who left earlier in the year, it cannot ask the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for an extra €300,000 to cover these costs. It has to suck it up. It has to find the money somewhere.

Most people who retire from the public service are employees of the HSE. The Department of Health is the only Department that has yet to give us the details of the Supplementary Estimate it requires. At this late stage, with less than a week to go until the budget for next year, the dysfunctional Minister in question cannot even give us a figure for the Supplementary Estimate for this year. I do not know whether that Supplementary Estimate will make provision for pensions to be paid to staff who retired during the course of the year. It might not. I do not know. Some 10% of public servants have direct access to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform through the Civil Service. As long as the Dáil has a vote on a special motion, they are able to have their pensions dealt with. That does not apply to the other 90% of public servants. I want to know what kind of equality will apply. What will happen to pensions in local authorities, State agencies and semi-State agencies?

I would have preferred to address my second point to the Minister, Deputy Howlin. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is a spanking new Department. As it was established some time in 2011, this year has been its first full year in existence. Given that it has been lecturing every other Department on the need to come in on budget, this has been one of its first big tests. The Minister of State has given us some excuses to explain why its figures in relation to this issue were wrong. That is not acceptable in the real world.

I ask him to explain subhead A4 to us again. According to the briefing notes, some €116 million was provided under that subhead in the original Estimate for this year, but we have now been told that the anticipated spend is €139 million. The difference is €23 million, or approximately 20%. The Minister of State mentioned in his opening statement that factors like the number of people expected to retire, the current staffing levels and the need to make provision for people leaving were considered when the original Estimate was drawn up. The Department's figure was 20% wrong. The original Estimate under subhead A4 was €116 million and the anticipated spend under that subhead is €139 million. The Department miscalculated by 20%. I wonder whether it would have got its sums wrong to this extent if this issue was still being dealt with under the Department of Finance. This is a serious criticism of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We will subject the Department to critical analysis. We have not had a Supplementary Estimate like this in the area of superannuation and retired allowances for a number of years. I suspect that in the old days, the Department of Finance would have projected its figures more accurately earlier in the year. I want the Minister of State to deal with that.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I deal with those two issues first?

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I have another issue I would like to raise as well.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might help the Deputy to hear my explanation for them. I will begin with the second issue. We got it wrong. The Deputy's question is the first one I ask as Minister of State when people come to me looking for Supplementary Estimates. The dilemma in this case is that we depend on other Departments to tell us how many retirements we are getting. Any public servant who is over the age of 60 can retire at any stage in the year by informing the relevant Department of his or her intentions. That cost is borne by the Department in question. We recoup those moneys to the various Departments through this Vote. It is not a question of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform getting anything wrong. It is a demand-led situation. As long as the scheme allows people to retire at any time - one could decide to do so at 11.50 p.m. on 31 December - a cost will have to be borne. In response to the Deputy's suggestion that we have got it wrong by 20%, I would like to invite him to look at the overall Vote.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am talking about subhead A4.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to be fair about this. Over €500 million is provided for in Vote 12. We are looking for €25 million today. That represents a deviation of 5% by 31 December on what was in the Estimate on 1 January. Fair is fair. At a time when we are dealing with more extended exits from the public sector than ever before, and given that we are relying on information coming back from Departments, I think we have got it quite right. The Deputy said we have never had this before. We had this in 2009, when the Deputy's party was in government.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the figure in front of me.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that a Supplementary Estimate had to be introduced with regard to this Vote in that year.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The adjustment in that case was a net €65 million. I am looking for €25 million, whereas the previous Government looked for €65 million in 2009. I will let others comment on that. The Deputy's first question related to other Departments.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I referred specifically to local authorities.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Vote looks after the Civil Service. I do not think it looks after the politicians, thankfully. Pension and lump sum arrangements in all of the other principal areas, including education, health and the local authorities, are determined in the Votes of the relevant Departments. If a raft of additional pension costs arose in a specific sector in the manner suggested by the Deputy, it would be reflected in the relevant subhead.

I can only take responsibility for the pension arrangements of civil servants, for which the Department got the figures wrong. The estimated figure was 5% short of the actual figure. However, there are mitigating circumstances this year which any fair-minded person would accept. The 5% difference between the estimated and actual figures is explained by the number of civil servants who have exited the service. Civil servants were able to retire under a unique arrangement this year. Furthermore, individuals who do not like the measures to be introduced in next week's budget may leave the Civil Service and continue to be paid, provided they are aged 60 years or over. While I accept the original Estimate fell short by 5%, I will allow Deputies to judge the matter in the light of the circumstances involved.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not press the Minister of State on this matter as I suspect it is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin. Before proceeding to deal with other issues, however, I reject entirely the Minister of State's explanation for the 5% shortfall. According to the briefing note provided by the Department, staff who left the Civil Service this year are covered by subhead A4.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The subhead refers to lump sum payments.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The shortfall of €23 million under this heading is the reason for the requirement for a supplementary sum of €25 million. Excluding this subhead, the original Estimate for all other subheads was €384 million and the anticipated spend at the end of the year is €383 million. The difference between the Estimate and the outturn is less than 0.33%, which indicates the Department's calculations in respect of those already in the system were spot on. The request for a Supplementary Estimate refers to one subhead for which the original Estimate was 20% short.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The new figure of €522 million we are seeking consists of three elements, namely, the sum of €485 million the Department has spent to date, a sum of €32 million for the two remaining months of the year and an additional €5 million for lump sum payments. The Estimate of slightly more than €500 million is being superseded by the Supplementary Estimate of €522 million. Expenditure under subhead A4 proved difficult to predict because the lump sum of 1.5 times salary refers to the exit point at which staff leave the Civil Service and is, therefore, heavily dependent on their position. A lump sum for a principal officer is much more than for a clerical officer. Moreover, lumps sums must be paid immediately.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I accept that the overall Estimate of €500 million is within 5% of the original target, expenditure under the subhead causing the problem is 20% higher than anticipated. This difference is masked in the overall figure.

The Minister of State is seeking an additional €25 million to cover the costs of pensions for retired civil servants. How many retired civil servants are in receipt of pensions of more than €50,000, €60,000, €70,000, €80,000, €90,000 and €100,000, respectively? This is an important issue as I will have a problem if the Minister of State is seeking additional funds to pay people in receipt of a pension of more than €100,000.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can provide the figures thanks to Deputy Mary Lou McDonald who submitted a number of useful parliamentary questions on this issue recently. Before reading the figures for the total numbers of Civil Service pensioners and the amounts they receive, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform made a crucial point in this regard recently when he noted that 1% of public service pensioners were in receipt of pensions in excess of €60,000 and that only a few hundred of them had a pension in excess of €100,000. During a debate in the House in Private Members' time some weeks ago I asked how many retired civil servants, politicians and judges had a pension of more than €100,000. I believe I am correct in stating the figure provided was 84. The precise figures as of September 2012 are as follows: 84 retired civil servants had a pension of more than €100,000, while a further 28 former Ministers and judges who come within the ambit of the Vote of the Houses of the Oireachtas were in receipt of a pension of more than €100,000.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State have figures for those in receipt of a pension of more than €70,000 and €80,000, respectively?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The following figures which were provided in July thanks to Deputy Mary Lou McDonald show that the numbers of retired public servants in receipt of a pension of between €50,000 and €60,000, €60,000 and €70,000, €70,000 and €80,000, €80,000 and €90,000 and more than €90,000 were 769, 57, 171, 23 and 85, respectively. This means that slightly more than 1,100 former civil servants receive a pension in excess of €50,000 per annum.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the figure of 85 include the 84 retired public servants who receive more than €100,000 per annum?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that case, only one person receives a pension of between €90,000 and €100,000.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figure of 85 for July had fallen to 84 in September, which suggests someone may have died.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the figure of 85 refer to those in receipt of a pension of more than €100,000?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, my apologies. The most up-to-date figures show that 84 people are in receipt of a pension of more than €100,000.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will not mind me saying he has a brass neck to seek from the Oireachtas a Supplementary Estimate to pay pensions to retired civil servants, 84 of whom are in receipt of more than €100,000 per annum.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect, I should clarify that the figures refer to people who are retiring now rather than existing pensioners.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has stated the overall Estimate is €500 million-----

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and expenditure until 22 November was €485 million. An additional sum of €25 million is required to cover the cost of the next two pension instalments for retired civil servants, 84 of whom are on a pension, as opposed to a salary, of more than €100,000. Has he not learned anything?

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has a brass neck given the mess the previous Government left us to tidy up.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to explain to members the reason certain former civil servants receive a pension of more than €100,000.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have an opportunity to question the Minister of State.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Sean Fleming is correct that of the 15,502 retired civil servants in the system, 84 have a pension of more than €100,000.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope these enormous pensions of more than €100,000 will be reduced next Wednesday.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform were present, he would point out that the Government reduced pensions of more than €100,000 by 20%. This measure was implemented in the context of the financial emergency legislation introduced in 2009 by the Government led by Deputy Sean Fleming's party. The legislation in question was extended by the Government and stringent conditions, including the presentation of reports to the Dáil, attach to it. Any fair-minded person will agree that the additional 20% charge the Government imposed on pensions of more than €100,000 is proportionate.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that the Government amend the legislation before Christmas to ensure no retired civil servant receives a pension of more than €100,000.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Deputy's request.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To assist the Minister of State, I have published legislation which would give effect to the measure proposed by Deputy Sean Fleming.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is ahead of the rest of us.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the Minister of State's point on the timing of the Supplementary Estimate, which is fair enough.

However, the irony of the Minister of State appearing before the committee seeking clearance for the additional €25 million, virtually days in advance of the next austerity budget, is not lost on anyone. One can separate out this request for additional moneys from the broader issue of public service pensions in their totality. It is important to say that the vast majority of public sector workers have pensions of €30,000 or less but there is an issue around those who are in receipt of excessive pension payments. The Minister of State read out the figures I got in reply to a parliamentary question last summer. It is fair to say there are only a limited number of people who are in receipt of pensions in excess of €100,000. Will the Minister of State tell the committee what is the top of the range pension that is being paid out to the 84 pensioners? We had suggested a system using the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts and the levies on pensions over and above €60,000. We set them out in a legislative form. Our proposal remains on the table. If the Minister of State was to use that mechanism a saving of €10 million could be made. Rather than appearing before the committee seeking €25 million he would be seeking €15 million. Is it the Minister's intention to revisit the FEMPI legislation and the levies being paid on very high pensions?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for her Private Members' Bill to which the Government will give due consideration when the matter comes before the House. I want to be honest, we will look at any and every proposal that is made. As the Deputy rightly said the great majority of public service pensioners are on very modest pensions. She asked the number on pensions of €10,000 or less. I understand the number is about 7,000 who have a very modest pension. We are all conscious of large pensions and exits upon which people leave the public sector. That is why the Government has taken the decision to increase the amount of rebate for people over €100,000, added to the amount of additional taxation and the levies that have been imposed and the reductions in pay at the top within the public sector. I have made the point to Deputy McDonald previously that this is something for which people internationally have regard. On the issue of pay and pensions, there is no point in separating them as they amount to the same amount of money coming from the revenue stream. Three years ago, the totality of public sector pay and pensions was about €20 billion. Now, if one adds up public sector pay and pensions - pensions have increased but pay has come done because of all the measures that have been introduced - they amount to €17.5 billion. Over a three year period €2.5 billion has been taken out of the total public sector pay and pension bill, in circumstances where not one day of industrial action has been lost.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is some validity in saying one has to take pay and pensions as a whole but we are speaking here for the purposes of this revised Estimate on the issue of pensions. It would be helpful if we could stick to that.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just clarifying the point that some people make the charge that an enormous change has not occurred in the totality of expenditure. The point I am making is that in a three year period €2.5 billion has been taken out of the totality of public sector pay and pensions and, I hasten to add, there is another €1 billion to go but it is an example of the road that has been travelled. As the Deputy's point relates to those in receipt of pensions over of €100,000, I make the point that the greatest reduction in terms of people's pay levels has been at the top of the public sector, up to 35% in cases. If the argument is being put forward by the Deputy that those at the top have not made a contribution, it is not borne out by the statistics which show that those at very top have given a huge amount of their salary, rightly so, because they can afford it. The Government has not been exclusive in this regard. We have said to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, that we will look at any and every measure which could help to make further savings in this area and we are not ruling out options.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I say, we do not have the scope for a full debate on-----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Take your time, Deputy.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. A 14% reduction in the pay of a clerical officer in the Civil Service is an incredible chunk taken from very modest earnings. It is misleading to posit that position against a person on €200,000 taking a bigger knock. That person had so much more that the consequences for that worker and his or her family are not comparable with workers further down the scale. That is a reality borne out and known by public sector workers. Perhaps we can park the pay issue and return to the pensions. Is the Minister of State comfortable with the fact that there are 84 people with pensions in excess of €100,000?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What the Deputy refers to is misleading. Equally, it is misleading for the Deputy or anyone else to posit the view that simply going after people in receipt of pensions of €100,000 or more will make a huge difference in terms of the totality of the saving. I just make that observation as the Deputy referred to the point as misleading. What I am happy about is the fact that the Government has introduced a range of measures to make sure that those who have more, in terms of their pension, pay more and have seen real substantial reductions in their pensions. That is an issue on which the Government has set out its view since coming into government. I am equally happy with the evidence on a legal basis because pension is a form of deferred remuneration, as the Deputy is aware, in terms of its property right component in terms of the Constitution. If the Deputy is asking the straight question, have we pushed the potential of doing this in terms of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, it is the strong view of the Department that if one goes after a cohort of people within the pension cover that we could leave ourselves open for a legal challenge. The worst circumstance would be if we were to lose in the scenario because the entire legislation framework would fall. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, has repeatedly made this point that there has got to be a proportionate view as to the reductions that have been made. That is why, as the Deputy is well aware, the reductions in pension cover for the entire cohort of salaries have been proportionate and we stand over that. I am comfortable in stating that someone has a pension of more than €100,000 will not change that situation. Of course, there are other issues that can be examined, particularly in the taxation area. That is one half of the equation if we are to introduce greater equality in terms of pension reductions; the other aspect is in terms of taxation. The Government will consider all these issues in due course.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not inquiring about the Minister of State's personal comfort or otherwise, my question was more a reference to his political judgment and comfort on these matters. If he was to revisit that FEMPI framework protecting all pensions of €60,000 and lower, which covers the vast majority of public service workers, and revisit the levies in a progressive way, we have demonstrated clearly that there is a saving of €10 million to be made. The Minister of State may dismiss that in the general budgetary arithmetic.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not dismissing it.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, he is appearing before the committee seeking an additional €25 million, specifically for the purpose of pensions.

My reaction to that is that I would not support those additional moneys, unless and until the Government is prepared to address the issue of all pensions above the €60,000 bracket and those at €100,000 and more. I have had this debate with the Minister, Deputy Howlin, but get the same ongoing echo from him. He has told us all about the constitutional dilemma, property rights and so on and so forth, but the institution of levies has been established within the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, framework. In talking about equity and dealing with citizens and workers in an equitable fashion, the Department and the State system must have an eye to the general budgetary position. We are insolvent and in the doldrums. Next week, the Department will introduce a package of €3.5 billion in cuts and additional charges. The time for excuses with regard to not dealing with the wildly excessive pensions has run out and it appears we will not have a meeting of minds on it.

I have one additional question. Some 16 serving Secretaries General still enjoy top level appointment committee, TLAC, terms. Why have those terms not been abolished? We all accept that Secretaries General are vastly overpaid. Payment at €200,000 is indefensible and the additional bells and whistles of additional years and special payments is an obscenity. Some of these 16 Secretaries General were appointed on the watch of the new Government and still enjoy these terms. Why has the Department not dealt with this yet and when does it intend to grasp that nettle?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister replied to a question the Deputy put to him on 21 November on the issue of additional reductions for people on salaries of €100,000 plus. I am not sure what her specific proposal is. We have made a reduction of 20%, but I am not sure what she proposes.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My proposal is that for pensions of between €60,000 and €80,000, we should shift the levy from 12% to 20%, that for a pension between €80,000 and €100,000 we would move the levy from 12% to a levy of 50% and for anything above €100,000, the levy would move from 20% to 99%. In other words, we would end the phenomenon of pensions above €100,000 for civil servants.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The advice that we have obtained, which was set out in the Minister's reply to the Deputy, was that a move to introduce close to a 100% rate of pension reduction on pensions over €100,000 could likely lead to the courts finding that such a complete restriction of property rights could give rise to legal difficulties and we set out that advice for the Deputy. We must be mindful of advice given to us.

The Deputy referred to the FEMPI legislation. That was emergency legislation, not normal legislation.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given that one must be clear that any scheme of reductions the Government proposes to make must be proportionate to the amounts people put in, their likely expectations due to their deferred remuneration and how they will be affected vis-à-vis other categories of pensioners, which is a crucial issue on which the courts would have a view.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Legally it is double arbitration, where people are being penalised twice, ahead of everyone else.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. These are wonderful things to say for the purpose of headlines, quick fix pretend solutions and fantasy economics, but unlike the Deputy, we must bring in actual measures that will make a difference. We must bring in measures that matter and must introduce tax and expenditure issues as part of our obligation to hit the targets we have been given. The Deputy may well have the luxury of putting forward fantasy proposals, as she has on many occasions, but that is a luxury we cannot afford.

On the question the Deputy raised, she could choose to vote against this and that is her choice

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I must inform the Minister of State there is no vote on this.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, but she can vote in the Chamber on it. If she or anyone chooses to vote against this, the clerical officer retiring next week, who will be on a very small pension, or the staff officer retiring with the legitimate expectation of a lump sum, will be left wanting. The money we are looking for is to ensure that we can balance our books in this Vote this year. The Deputy is putting forward the view, for whatever obtuse political reason, that this money is for people who are on pensions of €100,000 plus, but I suspect the major part of this money is for people on very small public pensions who have worked hard over time. If the Deputy and her party choose to take a stand against them, so be it.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister knows very well that the issue here is the small proportion of people on pensions that are too large, which are indefensible in the current economic climate. That is the reason the concept of emergency legislation came into being. It provides emergency measures for a crisis situation.

The Minister of State referred to legal advice. Perhaps he will help us out here. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, while liberally quoting this legal advice has steadfastly refused to produce it. It would be very helpful if the Minister of State could produce the advice he has been given. He may wish to dismiss my proposal as some kind of obtuse, political stance. I would expect nothing less from him.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will agree on that anyway.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The people, particularly public service workers who have endured a substantial cut in their wages and their standard of living, are very conscious and resentful of a situation where a small coterie at the top who are overpaid when employed and over pensioned when on pension, all at the expense of the taxpayer. I do not accept the Minister of State's argument with regard to the emergency measure. It is clear it is something he does not wish to do. Likewise with the TLAC terms. Every time it comes to dealing with people in the service who are on very high pay, it is a case of hands off and it is not possible to do anything.

When it comes to somebody further down the chain, the Government has no difficulty introducing emergency measures that, in proportionate terms, hit those people very hard. That is a political choice the Government makes.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only emergency measure we propose is an additional €25 million in this Vote, which will allow public servants on various pensions to be paid. That is what we are looking for.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department is refusing to deal with the issue of high pensions. That is the rider to its position.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I pointed out at the start -----

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, this is not Question Time and many of the arguments being made have been made at Question Time. I have afforded the Deputy a fair amount of time and she should allow the Minister of State reply without interruption, I can bring her back in after we have dealt with the contributions of Deputies Twomey and Spring if she wishes.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think I have made the point. The €25 million is for paying people between now and the end of the year. That is what we are looking for. Without labouring the point, the majority of those people are people who will have very small pensions for the rest of their lives.

There is a political point here too. This is about alternatives. If people put forward alternatives, the Government will look at those, but it is about the totality of those alternatives, not just parts of them put forward on the basis of the Government taking a decision. Many people will be interested in hearing the Deputy's view that Sinn Féin would abolish the universal social charge, which would have an effect on all of these pensioners. However, they would like to know how we would pay for that. In the round, people will ultimately be caught out on such questions.

People are much more clever than the Deputy is allowing. They know that these adjustments have to be made and they also know that commitments given by Opposition parties, like the universal social charge affecting all pensioners, were tested against available resources.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy McDonald that many people find it difficult to understand why some people are in receipt of such substantial pensions, especially as some of them may not deserve them and the country can ill afford them. At the same time, when putting forward proposals, we must try to be as realistic as possible. I am sure the Minister of State got his advice from the Attorney General, but did Deputy McDonald get legal advice on the imposition of 99% levies on large pensions? I do not think it would withstand a legal challenge. Did Sinn Féin get legal advice to the effect that such a levy would be lawful? If such advice is available, the Department should review it because during discussions on this matter in recent years the advice has been that imposing levies that are considered to be disproportionate on one group above another would be unconstitutional. The question of how much can be taken from existing pensions is a difficult one to answer.

Deputy Fleming criticised the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, in the context of what is happening with his Department's Vote but I remember a meeting with the previous Minister for Health and Children during the last Administration, where he could not tell us how many people were working for the HSE. He had no idea of the numbers. Furthermore, memorandums were sent by Ministers in various Departments to the effect that no additional staff should be hired, but people were being taken on left, right and centre. When the HSE was set up we were expecting to see a rationalisation of top management. The objective was that there would be fewer people running a more co-ordinated service but what happened was the original top grade in the old health board system, which numbered around 50, exploded and reached 780 at its peak. That was pure mismanagement on the Government's part. It should not have allowed such an increase in the number of Grade 8 staff, that is, senior management. On top of that, we had two rounds of benchmarking, which resulted in excessive pay increases. All of that has left the current Minister in an extremely difficult situation. He is trying to control budgets and spending.

The Minister of State made reference to future pay to pensions ratios, which is something that worries many people. In the coming years, new entrants to the public service will be paid less but the pensions being paid out will be based on the old pay rates. That in itself will create an enormous problem for future Governments because public servants will resent the fact that they are being paid less than some pensioners. It is very important to clarify what has happened on the pensions front, in terms of levies and other charges, as well as the reductions that have happened in recent years. There is political capital available to the Opposition in terms of arguing that there are many people who are floating around on massive pensions and that the Government is just putting up with that. There have been enormous reductions made to people's pensions, particularly to the larger ones. I ask the Minister of State to provide figures to the committee on the pension reductions that have been made for the specific grades referred to by Deputy McDonald. A comparison between the amounts paid in 2007 and 2012 would be useful.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy seeking both the gross and net figures?

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would be more than willing to provide those figures to the committee. Deputy Twomey is quite right. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has introduced a new unified pension scheme where career-average earnings rather than 50% of final salary will be used to calculate pensions in future. Not only will new public servants be on lower pay, they will also be in receipt of significantly lower pensions on retirement, which will have a knock-on effect on the State's liability into the future. Radical changes have happened in this area since this Government took office and that is borne out by the new single pension scheme. As the Deputy has also pointed out, there have been significant increases in tax and the USC as well as actual pension reductions, which I will put on the record. Pensions of between €12,000 and €24,000 have been reduced by 6%, those between €24,000 to €60,000 were reduced by 9%, pensions between €60,000 and €100,000 were reduced by 12%, while those over €100,000 have been reduced by 20%. These are radical reductions in pension cover. Furthermore, at least one third of any pension over €60,000 is returned to the State by way of tax. When we talk about a pension of €100,000 it is important to remember that €100,000 is not the take-home figure, as many in this room would know. A lot of change has already occurred and we are not ruling out further changes. The important numbers are the billions, rather than the tens of millions. The important figure is the total amount that has been saved over a three year period and we have further savings to make, without doubt.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to give us that information in tabular form so that people can understand the debate. This is a very serious issue that greatly concerns people on the street. We can talk about constitutional and property rights and what people are entitled to but people are more interested in the gross figures.

Are we sure of the numbers working in the public service now? I ask because during the last Administration there was much debate about the exact number of public servants. Are we also absolutely sure of the pension figures and the amounts payable? Are the figures reliable now because they were not during the course of the last Government?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figures are becoming more reliable. There were enormous changes this year because of the February deadline, when large numbers left the public service. Furthermore, if people were 60 years or over and had the requisite service, they could also leave after February. There was an enormous transformation in terms of the numbers exiting the service this year alone. We are confident that the figures we have put into the public domain, in terms of the total numbers in the public sector, are correct. There will always be some variation from one sector to the next, particularly in sectors like health and education because they account for a huge proportion of the total. The figure for the total number of public servants, excluding those working for local authorities, in 2009 was 278,106. That was the average number. In 2012, the figure is 264,421.

Other areas of public sector reform include redeployment, shared services, altered working conditions and so forth and these must be forthcoming to prove to the public that we can do more with less and achieve greater efficiencies in the public service.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be a need to take on people in the public sector in future in areas in which they are needed. There has been a good deal of talk about the 300 extra staff needed in the HSE in various roles, including those of public health nurse, physiotherapist and speech and language therapist. There is an issue with regard to new gardaí as well. Will redundancies be more targeted from this point on? We are seeing gardaí and public health nurses retiring. Will we need to take these people on again in one or two years' time?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is asking a crucial question: are we going to have new schemes? I presume this is an issue that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, will be addressing in the context of the discussions that are ongoing with trade union colleagues on this issue. The net issue is that the Government has given a commitment to get down to numbers of 282,500 by 2015, coming from a height of 320,000 in 2008. This is the target we must hit. There is some evidence that a considerable number of people have come out of the system. At the moment there are 290,000, but how we manage to get the next 8,000 or 9,000 in net reductions will be a critical issue.

There is some evidence that a group of people who withdrew their applications to depart in February may be incentivised to consider it again if a new scheme is established. The question is what the cost of that will be and whether we target it at particular sectors where there is a given requirement. This issue will of necessity come out of the dialogue with the trade unions and on our side with management as a means of trying to ensure that we get to the number of 282,500 by 2015 and do so in a way that does not diminish the number of front-line staff.

I offer one example of how to transform things and make a difference. One of the key aspects of public sector reform is shared services. Next year we will launch a human resources, HR, shared service. The total number of people involved in HR in central government is 850. The new HR shared services will do it all with 600 people. This means we will have more than 250 people to redeploy. That is a small example of what we can do if we get buy-in for the things we need in shared services.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should remember that SUSI is a shared service.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and the HSE was a measure of reform.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

"If you knew Susie like I know Susie".

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is seeking €25 million in respect of retirements that are taking place. If these retirements had not taken place, how much would the Exchequer have to pay in wages by comparison with what it is seeking at the moment? What is the saving overall?

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. What if the retirements did not happen? We reckon when someone moves from being paid a salary to being paid a pension the saving is at least 50%. One could argue that the cost would be a further 50% if these people had not exited.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am keen to put some light on this for anyone watching. If the Exchequer was not seeking €25 million, it would be spending more than €50 million. Ultimately, we are carrying out a cost-saving mechanism. That makes a great deal of sense to a great many people and it puts some perspective on the issue.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree absolutely with the Deputy.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a shocker.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Something else should be highlighted here. There are proposals with regard to what type of levy should be imposed on pensions. This is pertinent for anyone thinking of joining the Civil Service or public service who could earn substantially more in the private sector. If there is a cap on the amount of money that one can earn in wages and pensions, anyone wishing to provide for his family would take the view that the private sector is more of a safe bet and, ultimately, we will end up in a situation whereby people with useful skill sets will not be in the Civil Service. Everywhere we go, we hear that a high level of expertise is needed in the Civil Service. I am keen to hear a comment from the Minister of State.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a complex organisation in which almost 300,000 people work and there are some extraordinarily talented people with vast expertise. If some of that expertise was at work in the private sector, those involved would probably be on twice the salary they are on currently. Another point should be made to those who regularly harangue those in the public sector. Our public sector numbers vis-à-vis the total number of people at work in the economy is small by EU standards. Approximately 17% of the total workforce is made up of the public sector. It is a rather small component. Anyway, we must do things differently. That is the great challenge and buy-in is required.

Benchmarking was supposed to be about additional productivity for the additional pay given to people but I do not believe that ever happened. In a funny way, with benchmarking in reverse, there is an opportunity now for a new type of benchmarking. Several things have to be sorted out. First, we must benchmark ourselves as a country vis-à-vis other small countries in Europe. Second, we must benchmark ourselves with regard to the question raised by Deputies McDonald and Fleming on the long-term sustainability of pensions in the public sector. Third, we need to benchmark ourselves against future agreements. There must be space in which brilliant people in the public sector who have brilliant ideas and who carry out reform and make things happen are rewarded. However, we do not have the type of flexibility within the pay and remuneration system currently in place to do that. These are the challenges we face in trying to do benchmarking in reverse in a circumstance whereby the last exercise was a dreadful example of how not to go about it.

Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I met some of the members of ECOFIN last week. They find it remarkable that we are able to implement this level of taxation and cuts without civil unrest or strikes throughout the country. There would be implications were such events to take place. It would send a message throughout the world to anyone who was looking at the country and we are taking that for granted. I am unsure whether the media are being briefed about the level of difficulty at which the Department is operating.

I wish to point out one issue with regard to taxation or levies on pensions. The effective rate of tax, as Deputy Fleming and myself are aware, on anyone earning in the top bracket is really 52% at the moment. Let us consider what would happen if, as proposed by some committee members, the Exchequer put a 99% levy on anything over €100,000 and a 50% levy on anything over €60,000. It is unbelievable to think that for every €100 earned, if there was a 52% tax level and a 99% levy, then one would pay €151 in tax. It is probably the most crazy mathematics I have ever encountered, but the Minister of Sate can pass a comment on that if he so wishes.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People must be realistic. People have paid into these things. The legal position is that pensions are a form of deferred remuneration. As I noted earlier, it is classified as a property right. We have a body of law which is quite clear. I refer to the most recent judgment made by Mr. Justice McMahon. He referred to this point when he said that if the Exchequer tried to go after a group of people as a means of reducing what was a legitimate expectation on their part in an unfair or disproportionate way, there is a case that can be answered in terms of the courts. The worst position for the country would be if there was some undermining of the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation, to which Deputy McDonald referred earlier, because it is emergency legislation.

Considerable changes have taken place. The public sector has shrunk in size and its pay and pensions bill has reduced remarkably. No other country in Europe has done this in the circumstances we have faced. We have done this in a framework that other countries would give their left arms for, as the Minister, Deputy Howlin, has said. We should be mindful of that and also of the fact that we need to build capacity within our public service for the future. This means being flexible in terms of bringing people in. I understand that among new entrants to the Department of Finance in the past 18 months, some 30% have come from private sector backgrounds. This is the type of interchange we need to see. We need the public sector to find out what is going on in the private sector and vice versa. We need to see flexible arrangements in order that within our public administration we have the very best people who can give us advice, as policy makers, in terms of getting the best results for the country.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to add some of my own comments and broaden what the Minister of State has said. A reformed, efficient and effective public sector is a key part of the Government's programme of recovery, because as an operating pillar the public sector is critical to our economic recovery.

Before I joined the House, certain Deputies were responsible for introducing the Criminal Assets Bureau legislation. Lobbying went on from certain sectors of society such as the agricultural community, which sought to be exempted from the CAB legislation. There was extensive lobbying from certain sectors of society which may have acquired wealth by not conforming to the general provisions of the law. Representations were made from certain sectors in agriculture to the effect that agriculture should be exempted from CAB work, but this was found to be legally impossible.

The law cannot be implemented in a way that is not equal to all sections of society.

I return to a matter that concerns process and is not specific to what we are discussing this afternoon. This afternoon, we are talking about a demand-led scheme the cost of which cannot be predicted because people will come into it at different times. I am concerned with a matter that arose this year and will continue next year. Managers of budgets need to practise fiscal discipline which may not have been in the culture of Departments in previous years. At the ends of years hard cases, particularly in Departments such as health, often come back to select committees looking for extra money. I have witnessed departmental budgets coming before committees in that regard.

A certain fiscal discipline and maturity has now come into the Irish economy with the arrival of the IMF and the troika, in that we expose our accounts to examination by others. That is done on a quarterly basis. In areas that are not demand-led and where there is more control over expenditure could we consider looking at figures on a quarterly basis to see how those figures are being met, so that when Supplementary Estimates are presented we would have looked at the figures in previous quarters? Let us suppose, for instance, a saving of €10 per week has to be made over a 52 week period. If the saving is not made in the first, second and third quarters, a saving of €40 per week has to be made in the last quarter. Such an approach creates difficulty because the hit a specific Department has to take may have consequences for savings in another area.

I suggest that the committee look at those figures on a quarterly basis, as part of the Estimates process. Government and Opposition parties share the responsibility to make such savings. A saving that is proposed may not be realisable. It would be better to know that in the first or second quarter so that a different approach can be taken in the second and third quarters.

If this route is not taken we can end up with one of three difficulties. First, the saving may not be made because it is not being managed and the issue may be one for the Committee of Public Accounts or it may be necessary to invite managers to attend this sub-committee to explain why the savings are not being made. Second, if the direction of the saving is not realisable because of an over-estimation the responsibility lies with the Minister and his or her officials. Third, there may be an overall management issue as to why the savings are not being made.

I propose this process for next year. I propose that we look at projections of Estimates on a quarterly basis as much as Estimates adjustment.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a very good suggestion, Chairman.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree completely with your suggestion, Chairman. In recent years, Members' votes, in the budget or in subsequent legislation, for reductions in various sectors have not been followed by the Departments. A gross figure is the one that is managed. Our calls for a reduction in this or that are completely ignored. The Departments simply look at the gross figure. It is not drilled down.

None of us wants to go into the Chamber and vote for cuts to disability services or home helps. We vote on reductions in other areas but we are ignored when money is allotted to the people who are providing the services. This happens in education, health and social welfare. Individual Departments seem to take a gross figure and work off that. They do not seem to make an effort to fulfil what is voted for by the Parliament.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason we now have a Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is to answer the very question the Chairman has asked. We have a dedicated Department that is doing two things. First, it constantly keeps a much more vigorous eye on expenditure and, second, it aligns that expenditure to necessary public sector reforms. You seem to be saying, Chairman, that a further light of publicity needs to be shone on this. That is a sensible proposal.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose that when an adjustment has to be made we should make a quarterly examination of the Estimate to see if the savings are being made on a quarterly basis, as opposed to a balloon payment at the end of the year.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the sub-committee consider setting out the proposal to the Department so that we can give it due consideration? I will speak to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about it. I see some advantages in the proposal. Our colleagues on the Committee of Public Accounts may say this is already happening.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My proposal would apply to predicted expenditure where we do not have a balloon payment in the last quarter of the year, as opposed to pension requirements which are demand-led.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put your suggestion to the Minister. We might formalise it as a proposal. I do not see a difficulty in that.

The real problem arises if a Minister with responsibility for one of the big expenditure areas decides to save money in a particular area. That is usually bad news because it means schemes being cut or people losing money. The worst circumstance is not achieving that saving, because the task, on a yearly basis, is to make sure those savings are made. That is the challenge we face.

If there is a role for the committee in that we will certainly look at it.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for assisting the sub-committee in our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate. The clerk of the sub-committee will send a message to the Clerk of the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 86(2) the message is deemed to be the report of the sub-committee.