David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Now that the statements on health are finished, I will return to public sector pay. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. I met the Minister and his staff in his office a number of weeks ago and we had a full and frank discussion on the draft public sector pay agreement. The trade union membership will have its say on this matter, and I fully respect the outcome. I wish all of the trade unions well in their work in the coming weeks.

I presented the Minister with a document some months ago setting out my party's framework for a new public sector agreement. What we got is an extension of the Lansdowne Road agreement. As the three-year extension is a bit longer than people expected, essentially it is a new agreement. I welcome many aspects of the agreement. We wanted an agreement that prioritised low and middle-income workers. We also wanted a fair and timely unwinding of FEMPI. We sought a situation where the vast majority of public servants, who had on average 14% taken from them over the course of the austerity years, would have most of their income returned to them. I have publicly welcomed elements of the agreement. However, some issues were not addressed. One core issue in our framework document is equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, the Minister's proposals and the agreement that is on the table are weak on that issue. Let me be crystal clear; my party is very strong on this issue. It is a red-line issue for Sinn Féin and we are absolutely committed to returning the public service to a single-tier pay system, not only because it is the right thing to do for reasons of equality but because we must also make sure that we can recruit nurses, doctors, gardaí and front-line workers in the public service. It is very important that recruitment can happen and that public sector workers feel they are valued and they are not part of a two-tier pay system.

It does not make sense that equal pay was not addressed in the course of the agreement. I accept it was partially addressed on the pension levy side. There is a vague reference to looking at the issue at some point in the future - kicking the can down the road, which I am afraid will not do it for the vast majority of those public sector workers who are dependent on the Minister and the trade unions to deal with it once and for all. However, it was also the source of many of the industrial disputes that we had in the State in recent years. Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a three-year extension of a pay agreement that fails to deal with the core sore that led to many of the industrial disputes and strikes in the first place. As we know, it is a sore in Garda stations, hospitals and schools and it is one of the reasons many of the trade unions are not in a position to support the agreement and have called for a "No" vote. We must respect the rights of the individual unions to take their own positions on the agreement and have their own ballots. The membership of the trade union movement as a collective will make its decision known on the issue.

The agreement makes provision to revisit equal pay for equal work towards the end of 2018 but given the unfairness of this matter, it is deeply disappointing that it has not been put to bed for good. The agreement also kicks into touch the issue of retention, particularly within the health sector and the Defence Forces, despite the fact that this was raised by the Public Service Pay Commission, which the Minister commissioned. In my view one of the reasons it was commissioned was to delay as much as possible the actual negotiations but when the commission did produce a document, retention did feature heavily, although it did not feature all that much in the agreement itself. The agreement provides for talks on this issue towards the end of 2018, but as I said previously to the Minister in this Chamber, retention is a critical issue in the here and now. It is one that cannot wait for another 18 months to be addressed.

Sinn Féin's priority in all of these issues is to protect workers on low to middle incomes. On the issue of equal pay, I spent many months asking the Minister to cost the restoration of the public sector to a single-tier pay system and we got the reply some weeks ago that it would cost €209 million. We hear over and again from Fine Gael that the recovery is bedded in. Before the previous election the Government's mantra was "We are in full recovery". However, when we point out all of the issues that remain to be addressed, the mantra suddenly changes.

I do not believe FEMPI can or should be unwound in one go, not because I do not believe those on low and middle incomes should get full pay restoration - of course I do - but I would not support a situation whereby the top income earners in the public sector get very significant pay restoration. One could ask if FEMPI was to be unwound in one go what it would mean for ordinary workers. It would mean €66 for somebody on €25,000; €577 for somebody on €30,000; €1,752 for somebody on €35,000; €35,000 for somebody on €150,000 and; €53,000 for somebody on €185,000. One should forgive me for not wanting to support the unwinding of FEMPI which would give the Secretary General of the Department of Finance a pay rise of €53,000. I do not think he would expect that. Neither do I think the Minister would propose that and we would certainly not support it. We are not in favour of giving very large sums of money in pay restoration to people who are already on high incomes.

Under the Haddington Road agreement there was a separate registered agreement whereby those earning above €65,000 already benefit from significant pay restoration. I refer to those earning between €65,000 and €110,000. We fall into that category. It is hugely important that public sector pay is addressed. I accept there is a new agreement on the table. I have acknowledged that it is up to the trade union movement to adjudicate on that matter. We must give them the independence, time and space to be able to do all of that.

We have raised repeatedly with the Minister the issue of equal pay for equal work. We genuinely believe it was a mistake on his part not to have dealt with the issue. We still appeal to him to deal with it in the upcoming budget. It is something we will address in our alternative budget this year. On the previous occasion when we discussed public sector pay, the Minister seemed to think there was no issue with retention yet we were all able to give him examples of hospitals right across the State that cannot keep wards open or services going because they cannot recruit nurses. I gave him an example from my constituency of a community hospital in Dungarvan where beds were closed because it could not get the staff. The manager of the HSE in the area wrote to all retired nurses, those working part time or on short-time contracts appealing to them to do extra hours or come back into the system in order that the ward could be opened again for patients who need it. That is one example and it is happening in hospitals across the State. With respect, the Minister needs to take his head out of the sand when it comes to retention. It might not be an issue across the entire public service but it is one that affects many areas, and it is one that must be addressed.

We made our message to the Minister very clear. I thank him for agreeing to meet us, which coincidentally was the day after the agreement was signed. The Minister will note the areas where we disagree and the areas where we agree and acknowledge that we have welcomed elements of the pay agreement, which will be good for public sector workers. Anything that is given back to them, when one considers that they had so much money taken from them unilaterally over the course of a number of years, is to be welcomed.

I shall make one final point. I hope that FEMPI - and the Minister's emergency powers under the legislation - is finally taken off the Statute Book. I do not believe we should be using these powers again. We should be negotiating with trade unions, not involving ourselves in unilateral action whereby a Minister can simply cut the pay of public servants.

See this speech in context