Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. We welcome the conclusion of the public sector pay talks known as the Lansdowne Road talks. When we discuss the matter we should do so it the context of where we were when we initially introduced the financial emergency measures in the public interest legislation and where we find ourselves today as a people. In that difficult journey extraordinarily difficult decisions had to be made in this House which had a direct and immediate impact on people's lives. We have to acknowledge that a great many people shared serious burdens to ensure a readjustment of the public finances and to ensure the economy would be able to build itself back towards a sustainable funding model. We still have a challenging situation. This is evident from the budget last week and the fact we are still borrowing large sums of money to fund current expenditure. All in all, major sacrifices were made by many people. Obviously, the public service carried its fair burden with cuts to take-home pay, the imposition of the pension levy and increases in productivity and efficiencies. There is no doubt this made a major contribution to addressing the damaged public finances and the situation we found ourselves in between 2007 and 2012. All in all, they made a remarkable contribution.

When we refer to damage to individuals in terms of take-home pay, we should acknowledge that at one stage we had unemployment levels of between 15% and 16% and probably higher. However, due to changes in qualification criteria, particularly for the self-employed, many people found themselves without any support from the State. This included self-employed people who found themselves without business any more. In all that happened with the downturn in the economy, their plight was almost forgotten. These self-employed people found themselves without a business or any form of work. The State was miserable and underhand in dealing with them. Many of these people had worked extraordinarily hard. They had built up small businesses, made their contributions, paid their taxes and employed other people. When they found themselves gone, as it were, they were forgotten.

We often talk about the public service, the Civil Service in particular, in terms of bringing forward, defining, implementing and overseeing the development of policy. Those involved may not always understand the serious pressures on self-employed people. The self-employed must consider whether they will have enough money for themselves, enough cashflow to pay their employees' wages and all the continual pressures on self-employed people. They were another group of people who made a major contribution to the development of the economy, but when the economy went south, they were hit the hardest. Many of them still languish among the statistics without necessarily having good or reasonable supports or a floor on which they can tread when they find themselves in these difficulties. This group certainly played and continues to play its part as well.

Let us consider the stabilisation of the finances. Pay increases will be awarded under the Lansdowne Road talks. However, we need to be continually vigilant of the fact that at issue is public money. We need to ensure continual efficiencies. We need to ensure the progressive implementation of technology and new ideas. We need to ensure new thought processes are consistently brought into the Civil Service and the public service. I have found in opposition and in government that while we have the most professional and efficient Civil Service and people with remarkable integrity, at times we are reluctant and slow to embrace new ideas or look outside the capacity of the Civil Service for new ideas, innovation and technology.

One thing sprang to mind when I was reading some notes earlier. The Revenue Commissioners is definitely the most efficient organisation in this country in terms of embracing technology and doing what it is meant to do. Of course, the reason is that the Revenue is collecting money for the State. However, we are not as good in terms of efficiencies when we are trying to deliver services to citizens in areas that cost the State money. Often, we are slow and ponderous with applications for people seeking medical cards or social welfare or in cases of people who are languishing on hospital waiting lists. This also applies in general interaction between the State and the citizen. When the State is obliged to give something to the citizen, those responsible can be slow and reluctant to embrace the best ideas to ensure the services are delivered. Home care packages serve as an example. All these languish in a lethargic system of assessment to see whether people qualify and then subsequently in the awarding of the qualification. At times, we can be very efficient in one way but elsewhere we are not as good.

Let us consider the example of crime in rural Ireland. People get annoyed when they see no gardaí available to protect citizens from criminality. At the same time, they see what they believe to be considerable resources being used to collect debt for private companies, for example. These things are important when we are discussing the FEMPI legislation, the sacrifice of the citizen, the obligation of the State and the interaction of the State and citizen through the various State agencies.

I believe that as we progress as an economy, we must progress as a society as well. One of the key obligations is to ensure the State upholds its side of the bargain. We ask our citizens to carry the major difficulties and to pay taxes, but when the State has an obligation to ensure services are provided, it can be rather slow. That system grinds slower as resources dwindle. There is an intentional slowdown of assessment of people's rights and entitlements when they are looking for something from the State. We need to be mindful of that as we progress.

Overall, this legislation is welcome. It signifies that the endurance of many people over many years has been steadfast and highlights the sacrifices they have made. Some of these sacrifices had a major impact. Some public servants on take-home pay of €700 per week lost more than €100 in take-home pay between the FEMPI cuts and tax increases. That had an extraordinary impact on individuals, their quality of life, aspirations, dreams and their hopes for themselves and their children and families. Many people have gone through serious upheaval. This point must be a key acknowledgement in terms of celebrating and applauding ourselves from time to time in this Chamber for all the great work we have done. It is the case that we did extraordinarily difficult things, but it was in the context of passing legislation to stabilise the finances. However, the extraordinarily difficult things were carried by many citizens for long periods. We owe it to those people to ensure that when we start to award pay increases, we consider those who were disproportionately affected, those who were asked to carry most and who, perhaps, were incapable of carrying most, including the low-paid, clerical officers in the public service and the Civil Service, gardaí, teachers and nurses. These groups had a major imposition on their take-home pay and quality of life.

For all these reasons this legislation is welcome. As we try to return to where we were, I hope we will return having learned the lessons of the past. I trust we will reward those who carried most for the longest period. Primarily, they include the lower-paid in the public sector and the Civil Service. Certainly, those among the higher grades took pain as well, but there is no comparison between asking a public servant on €120,000 or €130,000 to take a cut of 10% and asking a clerical officer, a nurse or a garda to take a cut of 7% in pay. The impact is disproportionate for the lower-paid. We must acknowledge that in any further roll-out. I would like to expand on the point at another time.

See this speech in context