Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

There are a couple of principles at play here, the first one being the importance of a living wage. In many ways, the principle has been accepted by the Government insofar as there is a commitment to the living wage in the programme for Government. It is not clear exactly when that will happen, but at least the Government seems to recognise the principle that people should receive a living wage. As we know, the starting salary of SAs falls far short of that. It is not acceptable that people doing a responsible job should be paid so little starting off.

The second principle is that everyone should be entitled to equal pay for equal work. Many Members have set out examples of how SAs do essentially equal work at Seanad level to the work of PAs at Dáil level. Unfortunately, the principle of equal pay for equal work is not the case when it comes to the political staff in the Seanad. One of the most glaring pay disparities in the Oireachtas is between Seanad SAs and Dáil PAs.

The Oireachtas HR survey found a majority of Seanad SAs were performing tasks that would be considered PA level. They were doing research on legislation, drafting amendments, speech writing, communications and many other areas of work. Many have previous relevant experience and postgraduate qualifications, yet they are earning far below what is needed for any kind of acceptable standard of living, especially in Dublin.

It is important to emphasise how difficult and stressful the SA role can be. That applies in the case of the Seanad but even more so in the Dáil. Very often, staff must deal with very difficult calls and correspondence, which undoubtedly takes a toll on SAs. We all know that from our own experience. It can be hard to stop difficult cases following you home. In recent years in particular, many of us have been dealing with traumatic cases in our offices. There is the full spectrum of human concern about the general impact of the pandemic, the cost of living, income, loss of jobs, and serious concerns about health and waiting lists. Our staff are dealing with the full gamut of issues and it has been exceptionally stressful, to the point where there has been a recognition by the Houses that well-being and mental health supports must be provided. The past two years have been an extreme example of that.

It is very hard for staff to leave all of those concerns, emotion and anxiety behind at work and they, as well as Members, bring much of it home with them. It is also very often isolating work where somebody is in a constituency office or in an office in Leinster House on their own dealing with the public on a one-to-one basis. The volume of work and the range of issues coming into the office require a particular skill set, which can often be very difficult to find, especially when the pay is so bad.

We expect the people who work with us to have a wide range of expertise, experience and various skills. We also expect them to be good at dealing with the public and to be able to be diplomatic, sensitive and informative when people make contact with Deputy's offices, yet the starting pay is only slightly more than €24,000. It is also a very precarious role. Not only do Members have the sense, but so too do staff, that elections are always looming.

The question of political will arises in terms of addressing this matter. The biggest obstacle seems to be the lack of political will. We are making these points strongly to the Minister today, as Members did during the Second Stage debate, but it is all coming from this side of the House. However, I guarantee the Minister, if he asks anybody in any Department, he or she would agree this is a glaring issue that must be addressed urgently. As Deputy Pringle says, it is an embarrassment that people working for Members of the Oireachtas are starting on a pay level that is abysmally low. The matter must be addressed. I am sure the Minister agrees with that personally. He has been in this House a long time and he understands the work SAs do.

I am sure he will accept that the level of pay that is provided for them is wholly inadequate. What are we going to do about that? Unfortunately, the first two amendments here have been ruled out of order. It would have been reasonable for the Minister to allow some room within the context of what is a massive budget and a massive increase in spending, which is over €40 million for the next three years, but he did not see some way to provide further flexibility in the context of that big increase in the budget to cover a reasonable pay increase for SAs working in the Houses. He could have done that.

It is important to note who is responsible for this. Even though we are the employers, technically and legally, we do not have any control over this because it is the Minister’s Department which decides on the pay scales. We are saying that responsibility should be moved to the commission. It was a progressive move to establish the commission to deal with all of the associated spending in the Houses. Part of that should have been the setting of the pay scales for staff. I do not believe that there would be any dispute if a survey of Members were taken. The vast majority would agree that this long-running issue of concern needs to be dealt with urgently.

The amendment before us and the subsequent one ask the Minister to apply himself to this matter, to produce a progress report, to engage on the issue and to bring it to a resolution within a reasonable period of time. We are asking the Minister to come back to the House within six months with a report on the various aspects and implications of moving in the direction in which we all want to move. I think that is reasonable. I hope the Minister will consider supporting that amendment. It would be very hard to understand any kind of rationale for not doing so.

It is important to remember that it is two years since the Seanad passed a cross-party motion calling on the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to address this pay claim, but no meaningful progress has been made since then. It is up to the Minister now. He needs to step up because he has responsibility for the terms and conditions of the scheme, including the pay rates. That is why we are bringing forward these amendments. We hope he will respond positively.

The latest offer, which was rejected by SIPTU members, fell very far short of what SAs need or deserve. An increase of 1% in October, 1% next February and 1% the following October is just not on. That is wholly inadequate. It would have brought the salary up to just over €25,000. That is not acceptable at any level. Again, it is still short of and well below the living wage and works out at about €12.09 per hour. The proposed 3% increase is lower than the rate of inflation which, as we all know, has increased to 5% since the claim was lodged. That needs to be recognised, as do the structural problems in respect of low pay. It is embarrassing and shameful that this is all we are offering to essential staff members who work with all of us.

In conclusion, we could not run our offices without our SAs. They are a vital part of the Oireachtas community and that should be reflected in their being assured of decent pay scales. This cannot be swept under the carpet any longer. SAs have waited long enough. I strongly urge the Minister, at a very minimum, to support these amendments.

See this speech in context