Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The required fiscal recovery is not complete and we are not yet at a stage where we can remove the financial emergency measures for all public service pensioners. It is estimated that from 1 January 2018, in the region of 25,000 retired public servants in receipt of pensions substantially higher than the average public servant’s pension will continue to be subject to pension reductions. Quite properly, the pension reductions imposed remain larger for public service pensions of higher value.

There is the more general question of this country's financial status and whether the word "emergency", as used in the title of this Bill, is still relevant or apt. The Bill has this title because it is mainly concerned with amending the previous FEMPI Acts. Given the extremely promising signs of economic recovery that we are seeing, the Deputy wishes the Government to declare the emergency over, but we cannot do that. Certainly, the end is in sight and we have come very far from where the last Government had landed us but that is all the more reason to remain cautious and not jeopardise the recovery for which we have all worked so hard. As was outlined yesterday, this restoration is being done responsibly, and part of that responsibility is to not rush and declare the job done. Instead, this Government is patiently staying the course.

Several Deputies have suggested that more should have been done for lower-paid public servants. The position is that the Bill gives effect to the provisions of the Lansdowne Road agreement, which was reached following extensive consultation with trade unions representing all public servants, including lower-paid public servants.

2 o’clock

The public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions accepted the terms of the agreement on 16 September 2015. Any deviation from the agreement at this juncture would seriously undermine the agreement and potentially cause significant industrial relations difficulties. The agreement has been crafted in such a fashion as to ensure that lower paid public servants gain most from the application of the terms of the agreement.

Deputies will be aware that these measures are being introduced at a time when the country is emerging from the economic crisis, but the Government is clear that it must continue to be prudent with budget expenditure. Notwithstanding this, the Bill contains specific measures to address those on annualised salaries of less than €24,000, who will receive a 2.5% increase in addition to a flat €1,000 increase and those on annualised salaries between €24,001 and €31,000 will receive a 1% increase in addition to the €1,000 flat rate increase. Moreover, lower paid public servants will benefit from the reduced pension-related deduction rates.

The issue of additional working hours has also been raised. While not a matter that is addressed in this Bill, it is the case that this measure brought public servants into line with industry norms in the context of working hours. Even with this measure, the public service continues to offer a wide range of family-friendly schemes to its staff.

Deputy Daly has made a point regarding the situation of teachers, specifically in relation to statements by the ASTI or TUI regarding the Lansdowne Road agreement regarding accusations of bullying by the Government. First, it must be made clear that sections 4 and 10 of this Act, which deal with the increment freeze and the ability to increase pay in certain circumstances respectively, are by no means targeted at teachers. Rather they are general provisions dealing with non-compliance with the terms of collective agreements and represent measures included in the FEMPI 2013 Act, which are now being amended to accommodate the extension of the Haddington Road agreement through the Lansdowne Road agreement.

The Government’s position on this matter is very straightforward. All unions abiding by the terms of the Haddington Road agreement, and the Lansdowne Road agreement which extends it, regarding workplace reform and so forth, will continue to enjoy the protections and benefits of those agreements. These would include such things as being excluded from the more severe increment freeze and the payment of allowances where they have been previously agreed. Obviously, should any union not comply with the terms of the agreement, it would be extremely difficult to justify their gaining from it, particularly in light of the sacrifices made by their fellow public servants.

All unions and associations were invited into these discussions, with those in ICTU operating under the auspices of the public services committee of ICTU and its processes. That the vast majority of public servants have accepted this agreement by aggregate vote was confirmed by the public services committee on 16 September 2015.

Deputy McDonald has argued that the Bill is too generous to higher paid public servants. I have three points to make by way of answer to this. The Lansdowne Road agreement, and this Bill which gives effect to it, are very much geared towards benefitting the lower paid more, proportionally speaking. It should be noted by the House that those public servants earning over €65,000 will not receive the extra €1,000 in September 2017 and that those very few earning over €110,000 will not receive the full restoration of the cuts imposed on them in 2013 until 2019. However, it is the view of this Government that since all public servants have endured the measures imposed by the five FEMPI Acts, it is only right and equitable that all should now stand to benefit from the partial and phased restoration that this Bill will bring about.

While the 2013 higher pay cuts are being restored over time in these measures the full effect of the 2009 and 2010 reductions will remain in place in 2019. To give an example, the pay of the Taoiseach was some €285,000 in 2008. It is currently just over a net €168,000. When the restoration measures contained in this bill are completed in 2019 that pay will then be a net €182,175, still well below the 2008 level.

Finally, and in support of what I have just said, the FEMPI Acts are predicated on the sharing of the burden across all levels. If this Bill were to exclude the higher paid, the Government would surely be opening itself to a legal challenge regarding the equitability of its measures. Deputy Creighton argued that we should not give any pay increase to public servants and should instead put the money into increasing services. The only way to do this would be to put money into significantly increasing the numbers employed in the public service. She went on to argue that we should do away with blanket increases for all public servants and instead switch to a model of paying by performance payments and bonuses. She maintained that the vast majority of public servants would welcome such a move because they would fare better under such a system with better payments. However, if the numbers employed are increased and the pay model is changed to give the majority of staff more money, we will once again have a runaway pay bill. It is not so much the political philosophy as the arithmetic which is clearly suspect.

I believe that I have now substantively covered the points raised by the Deputies. This Bill gives the Government the statutory basis to make good on the commitments made under the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road agreements, both of which are vital components in the reform and renewal of our public services. I believe it is right and fair that we honour those agreements, and that we give something back to those public servants, serving and retired, who contributed so much during our country’s financial emergency.

The crisis Ireland has endured has made us wary as a nation, wary of give-aways and poor planning. This is why the Government has been so careful to ensure that the reductions effected by this Bill are done in a way that is fully sustainable going forward. We believe that restoration must be accompanied by responsibility. I thank the House for its support and initial comments and look forward to detailed discussion on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context