Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I believed I would have more, as I had 30 minutes yesterday and only used five. Anyway, I shall do my best to impart my wisdom in 15 minutes.

The Minister has extolled the virtues of the unwinding of the financial emergency legislation. The dark days are over and we are on the road to recovery, he says. That is what he would have us believe. The FEMPI legislation came about because of the catastrophic situation that the country found itself in as a result of the failed and disastrous policies of a Fianna Fáil Government, policies that were compounded by the current Government's response to the crisis. The current Government championed policies that led to further severe austerity measures that left those on lower incomes and the less fortunate reeling. While the catastrophe required a response, the cuts and policies were felt most acutely by those whom this Government specifically targeted. That was certainly the case for low-paid public sector workers.

Starting with Fianna Fáil and continuing with the current Administration, emergency legislation has been put in place that has left the public service with staff cuts, moratoriums on recruitment, cuts in pay, pension reductions, increment freezes and increased working hours. The legislation before the Dáil today aims to unwind aspects of the emergency Bills. As explained last night, it sets out the terms for a partial restoration of pension reductions and a restoration of some pay to public servants or, as the memorandum accompanying the Bill helpfully tells us, it will "reduce the reductions".

Sinn Féin has been very clear throughout this whole process. When agreements were negotiated and legislation was debated on where we stand in regard to these and other cuts, we were very consistent in arguing in the Dáil, the Seanad, the media and the public domain that we did not and do not support any measures that cut the pay of low- and middle-income public sector workers. We argued very strongly that any new deal must prioritise pay restoration for low-paid public servants. We have been consistent in the analysis that targeting low- and middle-income workers' pay is economically and socially unsound. In addition, Sinn Féin has consistently argued for a living wage. In its recent pre-budget submission to the Government, it provided for a living wage to be introduced across the public sector.

The truth is that long before there was ever a recession in this State, there was an enormous pay gap between the highest and lowest paid in the public service. If one examines wage inflation between 1997 and 2009 and compares the accumulation in income of a Secretary General by comparison with a clerical officer in that period, the yawning, enormous and indefensible pay gap becomes all the more evident. It is clear to us that lower-paid public servants not only were left behind by the Celtic tiger but, like other low-paid workers, took the brunt of the Government's austerity measures while the higher-paid public servants forged ahead and were cosseted, resulting in an ever-increasing pay gap. In negotiating the agreements and implementing the various emergency Bills at all the various stages, the Government had a golden opportunity to tackle once and for all the considerable pay inequity across the public service and Civil Service, yet it failed to do so. I must emphasise again for the purpose of clarity that those who are overpaid and over-pensioned in the public service and Civil Service comprise a tiny minority of the workforce.

At the conclusion of the talks that led to the Lansdowne Road agreement, we examined its measures in detail. We did not take the agreement in isolation. We met the trade unions and talked to various stakeholders. It became obvious that, while the Government wished to sell the agreement on the basis that it primarily or wholly targeted low- and middle-income workers, this was not the totality of the story. I wish to challenge directly the claim of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, last night in respect of this legislation. He said it was important to stress that the legislation is progressive and measured, with lower-paid public servants standing to gain most. That is not the truth, yet it has been the substance of the rhetoric on this legislation and the Lansdowne Road deal since it was struck. However, as with most things in life, the devil becomes evident in the detail. Section 5.2 of the Lansdowne Road agreement makes a commitment "to commence the process to reduce the pay reductions applied under the FEMPI Act 2013". In other words, it refers to the Haddington Road agreement. If the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform were here, I am sure he would recall that we have had conversations on this before. I put it to him before that it is not possible to consider both agreements separately or in isolation. To understand the impact on public pay and public sector workers, one needs to consider the agreements in the round. Both must be viewed as one complete whole.

Far from representing a measured and prudent unwinding of the FEMPI legislation, as the Minister claims, the provision before us is such that, although lower-paid public servants do receive some relief, the reliefs are proportionately far greater for those further up the scale. The Minister is aware of where our concerns lie. I believe this should be of concern to him. I will say more on this subject in a few moments.

If the Government is serious about the reform of the public sector, it should use every opportunity presented to it to eliminate runaway pay at the top, ensure greater pay parity and eradicate gold-plated pensions. Such opportunities presented themselves in the midst of the greatest financial catastrophe the State had faced, yet the Government wimped out of dealing with those issues. I have submitted amendments to FEMPI legislation that would have specifically and unapologetically targeted high-income earners and protected low- and middle-income workers and their increments. The amendments would have removed the ability of the Government to increase working hours at a whim, but all to no avail. Time and again, the legislation went through without amendment.

Not unlike others in society, public and civil servants at lower grades and on low pay struggle badly. The real question for them is whether there will be some relief in their pay packets and households. We have brought to the attention of the Minister previously the fact that many public sector workers rely on the family income supplement to make ends meet. It is a disgrace that anybody employed by the State would be reliant on that supplement.

While we welcome some amendments, such as the small provision that puts extra money in workers' pockets, we believe that no matter how much one tries to spin the legislation, it shows once again that the Government does not have in mind a fair recovery or restoration. Recovery and restoration are in mind for those on higher wages, admittedly, but if there were a fair recovery there would be greater pay parity. Low-income workers, who need full pay restoration the most, would receive it. Why are the only real beneficiaries of the two agreements, in substantive terms, those who need to benefit least? If it is the case that the focus is on those earning incomes of under €65,000, who will, let it be said, have an additional €1,000 per annum in their pockets, why is there such a sharp contrast with those earning over €65,000 and up to €110,000, who will see the full unwinding of the FEMPI cuts in respect of the higher portion of their wages? How could the Government argue that this represents a focus on the lower paid? Higher-income earners will have the cuts to their pay fully restored in two tranches. If one earns between €65,000 and €110,000, the first restoration is envisaged to apply in April 2017 and the second is to apply in January 2018. The real high rollers, on wages over €110,000, will receive a full restoration in respect of the income above €110,000 in three stages, beginning in April 2017 and ending in April 2019.

Where we see the full row-back on the cuts is for the higher proportion of income that higher income earners have. Full unwinding, therefore, only applies to a select few. This is a partial unwinding of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, Act for those earning under €65,000 and a comprehensive and complete unwinding for high earnings thereafter. Where is the fairness in that?

When the Landsdowne Road agreement was reached, I was struck that trade union members and workers initially took the Minister on his word that the focus was on those on lower wages, certainly up to the €65,000 bracket. It was only after the fact that the full picture and consequences came to the attention of those workers and perhaps their trade unions. This is a matter we will return to on Committee Stage when we will submit amendments in that regard.

Can the Minister claim that this is a proportionate response? Can he tell those public sector workers that while the cuts hit those public sector workers on the lowest incomes hardest, they will have to stomach the prospect that restoration is unequally applied and favours high earnings and high earners? It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that the Lansdowne Road agreement focuses entirely on the low paid. That is manifestly not the case in this legislation.

It is also a fact that front-line workers have been disproportionately hit. I refer to our nurses, gardaí, firefighters and doctors who are expected to deliver a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service to keep us safe and to look after our well-being. We must bear in mind that these are not just public sector workers. They are husbands, wives, mothers and fathers who have mortgages to pay, children to feed and rent to meet, and all from a very depleted pay packet. These workers, who have had their pay significantly reduced over the years, simply could give no more. They were squeezed until the very pips squeaked, and what is their reward for their pain? It is certainly not full restoration of pay or pension deductions. There may be the promise of that, but that has not become clear.

Both the Lansdowne Road and Haddington Road agreements were implemented by a Government that saw no other strategy or option but to punish public services rather than invest in them and enhance them, and there is no doubt that the standard of living of public sector workers has been damaged. I note in his contribution last night the Minister paid tribute to workers across the public and Civil Service. That is as it should be, but the actions of this Government would not lead any of those workers to believe they are valued. The truth is that within the sector we still do not have appropriate decent pay and working conditions for all of the workers, and we have the desperate spectacle of the chosen few and the rest. That is not a tolerable situation.

The Minister is also aware from previous debates that when benchmarked with other jurisdictions, the pay gap between those on low pay and those on very high pay within the Irish system is at odds with what would be considered to be normal, healthy, acceptable and equitable in an international context.

I want to comment on the requirement for the additional working hours. The Minister stated, almost as a boast, these additional hours that have accrued to the system because of the cuts. These additional hours have had a very detrimental impact on many workers. In particular, in my experience they have had a great impact on women or anyone who has a child care responsibility. All of us here know that the cost of child care is literally crippling for many families. It is a major issue facing any working parent but for those within the public and Civil Service who find themselves in the position of working additional hours, even if it is only a small parcel of time measured out over a working week, that additional time incurs often a disproportionate and very high cost in terms of additional child care. I know it was very disappointing for many that when the talk about unwinding FEMPI and giving back to public servants was being trumpeted by Government, the issue around these additional hours was not examined nor a cost-benefit analysis done in terms of productivity. What are we getting for these additional hours?

I understand that within the health service there may be a particular case in respect of the hours. I am open to hearing that. I hope we will discuss that on Committee Stage but I know that in many other scenarios - in the Civil Service, for instance - I would question the value of the additional time in productivity terms. I know from speaking directly to people that it has had a major cost.

Public sector workers are the backbone of social provision in this State. We all depend on them at critical moments so it is not appropriate that schemes like JobBridge are used to fill the gaps in creaking services. It is all very well to expect productivity but how are public sector workers expected to do more with fewer resources? The recruitment embargo must be lifted. That is one measure that will help rebuild confidence in our public services.

The Minister said last night that he is proud of the considerable improvements in terms of public service provision that have been delivered since 2011. I am not sure where the Minister is mixing or the services to which he was referring but from talking to public sector workers, and in general conversation with people in the real world, it is apparent that our services are stretched, and sometimes that is the best case scenario. In other scenarios they are literally fit to collapse.

We just had a very informative briefing from the ISPCC, which raised a range of issues that are directly attributable to lack of staff, lack of money, lack of investment and lack of understanding in terms of the services that vulnerable children require. I refer to social workers, for instance, and weekend and out of hours cover. We have a crisis in that particular service provision, and something that goes to the heart of the safety, well-being and future of children. I cite that as only one example; I could cite many more. Let no Minister come in here and pretend that they are presiding over a golden era of building, modernising and revitalising public services. Far from it. They have presided over cutbacks, austerity, staff shortages and crises across multiple services.

It could be said that the public services in this State, taken in their totality, might be described as broken, at times ineffectual and certainly frustrating for all those dedicated individuals who are at the coal-face delivering services. It will take much more than an election orientated budget to repair the years of neglect that are attributable not only to Fianna Fáil and the previous Administration but directly attributable to this Government.

5 o’clock

We have to address the problems in our public services, repair the damage and invest and build them up. The scandal of the trolley crisis is probably the most immediate crisis that jumps into the minds of citizens. It is the clearest illustration of what can happen when we do not protect our services and implement the cuts and other measures that have occurred in recent years. There has been an ongoing failure on the part of this Government to deal in any meaningful way with the housing crisis and the homeless crisis or to address realistically the deterioration in our health service. While these crises exist we are not on the road to recovery, contrary to what the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, claimed last evening.

The money going out on excessive wages, for instance, could be better spent improving services and contributing to the investment we need. An Taoiseach earns a salary of €185,000. Under this legislation, he will see reinstatement of his previous salary. It that not correct? I see no argument for paying the Taoiseach €185,000 and I certainly see no argument for paying the Taoiseach more than €185,000. It is a matter of equity and democratic credibility for senior Ministers, Government officials and senior politicians, who insist, to use the old L'Oréal cliché, that they are worth it and, moreover, that some are more equal and more deserving than others.

When taken in the round and considering the struggle that public sector workers have endured and continue to endure to this day, the question of the treatment by the State of its low and middle-income employees arises. What does it say about the State as an employer? I imagine any impartial observer would suggest that it reflects the State as not being a good or fair employer. If there is to be a fair recovery and equitable restoration of pay and pension cuts, and if the Government is really serious about doing something, especially for low-income public sector workers, then those in government must cast their gaze to the bottom rung, where they reside, as well as cast their eyes upwards. The Government should cut the excessive pay of the tiny minority of the overpaid. The Government should act to restore fully the cuts to low-income workers. They deserve more than what is offered in this package.

I believe the Government's commitment to the investment in public sector services generally will also be reflected in the commitment - if the Government has any - to investing in the pockets and pay packets of those on low and middle incomes, those who essentially and by virtue of their numbers drive, run and produce all the positivity that public services can bring to bear in our society.

See this speech in context