Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The position with the Bill before the House is that public service pensions will be hit.

A number of amendments relating to this matter have been tabled for Committee Stage. The gist of those in my name is that everyone who is in receipt of an amount of less than €65,000 or €60,000 should be included. Those are the figures in the legislation in respect of the incomes of people at work. Just because one is not at work does not mean one can live on half the amount on which one was living up to one's retirement. I am of the view that the reduction in income should be at a certain level across the board. There should be no cut for those earning below €60,000 to €65,000 - the figures contained in the legislation - and I have tabled amendments to that effect. Whether those amendments will be ruled as being in order is a separate issue.

I am aware that other Deputies will have a great deal to say in respect of the proposed reduction in remuneration for public servants earning more than €65,000 . However, in the amendments I have tabled for Committee Stage I have proposed that those earning in excess of €200,000 should have their incomes reduced by 20%. The legislation already contains a proposal to the effect that the incomes of those who are in receipt of €180,000 plus will be subject to a reduction of 10%. The Taoiseach's salary is currently in the region of €200,000 and as a result of the proposed cuts, it will drop to €185,000 or perhaps a little less. I am of the view that anyone who is in receipt of a salary larger than that of the Taoiseach should have it reduced by 20%. There are those who state that no one should be paid more than the amount to which I refer and it has often been stated that half of the people who earn these high salaries are hospital consultants. A cut of 20% in the portion of someone's salary that is over €200,000 would not amount to a great deal. If a person - for example, a surgeon - is in receipt of €250,000, the 20% cut would be applied to the €50,000. This would mean a cut of €10,000 gross and only €5,000 net. Given that the incomes of such individuals will already be the subject of a 10% reduction under the terms of the legislation, they would only be obliged to absorb an additional pay net pay cut of €2,500 in order to bring them up to 20%.

The Deputy seated just down from me would probably state that the amount to which I refer is not half enough. She might be right in that regard. In any event, it is my view that there should be an additional cut for those who are on more than €200,000 and I have tabled an amendment in this regard. I am aware that there is a conflict between the various amendments relating to this matter because Deputies have suggested different ranges of figures and different levels of reductions. There are, perhaps, those who might state that no one should be paid more €200,000. However, all of us on this side of the Chamber are of the view that there is a point at which people who are in receipt of higher salaries should be obliged to absorb significant cuts. I have taken the Taoiseach's salary as the benchmark in this regard. Anyone who is earning more than the Taoiseach should be obliged to take a steeper pay cut than him. Most people would agree that this is both fair and reasonable.

A thorny issue is going to arise with regard to the agreement being binding on individual sectors, particularly in the context of how the trade unions vote. A constitutional issue arises here. As a member of the Labour Party and a former trade unionist - he may still be a member of a trade union - the Minister will be aware that people's right to join trade unions is enshrined in the Constitution of Ireland, Bunreacht na hÉireann. The courts have deemed that people also have an equal right not to join trade unions. There are public servants who choose to exercise their constitutional right not to be members of trade unions. I am of the view that the Minister is making an assumption with regard to how these people should be impacted upon by any agreements in their sectors. He almost seems to be implying that if a sector votes "No", then non-union personnel will also be deemed to have voted in this way. This is despite the fact that they would not have a vote in respect of matters of this nature, which is an important consideration.

Another difficulty I have relates to the guillotine that will be applied in respect of the legislation. The trade unions have not yet balloted their members but the Bill will be passed by the House tomorrow night. This is a grave discourtesy to people. I would have understood if the Minister had published the legislation, put it through Second Stage and then informed the trade union movement, "This is what is coming down the track the week after you ballot your members, one way or the other. At least you know where we stand". For it to be passed by the Oireachtas before voting on the new agreement even commences, is informing the unions that the Minister does not care whether they vote "Yes" or "No" or whether members tear up their ballot papers and do not vote at all. What he is saying is that it does not matter, the legislation is going to be passed and the views and decisions of trade union members are of no consequence. I do not understand why the Minister is proceeding in this way. He is paying a major discourtesy to these people. He previously stated that he would not rush legislation through the House in the absence of consultation. He has introduced this legislation following a period of consultation but in the absence of agreement. If the Haddington Road agreement is or is not accepted, that will be of no consequence because the Minister has decided that the legislation should be passed in any event.

The different sectoral agreements to which I refer may have knock-on effects in the context of staff mobility across the public service in the future. In addition, the legislation is very weak on public sector reform. The Minister will state that it contains a number of measures in this regard but I am of the view that they are watered down in nature. They say little about ensuring reform and improving delivery of public services. The new Haddington Road agreement has largely been treated by the Government as a cost-saving exercise. In that context, it has missed out on the opportunity to improve public service delivery.

It is key that we should monitor how what is being done here will impact on citizens. We must also monitor whether the delivery of front-line services improves. The main challenge will be to ensure that such services are protected and that the public will not suffer as a result of those services being impaired by attempts to make savings, other than those relating to payroll. Key areas to monitor will be those relating to hospital waiting lists, queues in accident and emergency departments, special needs facilities in schools, the time taken to process social welfare applications and appeals - no one in the House can be unaware of the fundamental difficulties which already exist in this regard - the ongoing and lengthening delays in respect of Garda vetting and the delivery of local authority services. There must be a greater facility for staff transfers from the HSE to, for example, the Department of Social Protection or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Passport Office is currently under pressure, which is understandable, and a backlog is building up again. Staff could also be transferred to the State Laboratory and the Private Residential Tenancies Board. Many of the entities to which I refer are understaffed at present. As part of a mobility scheme, however, staff could be moved into them.

The lack of a formal assessment process is hampering staff redeployment. International studies show that investing in key areas of the public service such as, for example, that relating to the collection of revenue, can improve the delivery of services. We have witnessed this in the context of the amount of money that is going to be levied from the local property tax, responsibility for the collection of which was given to the Revenue rather than to the Local Government Management Services Board or local authorities. One of the latter - I do not know which - were responsible for collecting last year's household charge. It was much better that Revenue was given power in this area.

There is an increasing need to appoint specialists to certain areas of the public service. I refer, for example, to statisticians, IT specialists, environmental specialists, solicitors and barristers. It would be better to employ the latter full-time rather than pay them on an hourly or a daily rate, as is currently the case with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and similar bodies.

My party has supported measures that were introduced in the past. However, as a result of the provision in respect of pensioners - who were not consulted in respect of or who were not allowed to be involved in the discussions relating to either the Croke Park II or Haddington Road agreements - and in view of the unfair treatment being meted out to them, I will be opposing the legislation.

See this speech in context