Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the amount expected to be paid by personnel in his Department arising from the pension-related deduction announced by him on 3 February 2009; the personnel within his Department who will not be required to make the payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4745/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach the average amount expected to be paid by personnel in his Department arising from the pension-related deduction announced by him on 3 February 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4746/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 9: To ask the Taoiseach the projected payments by staff in his Department under the proposed new levy on public service pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5673/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 10: To ask the Taoiseach how the proposed public service pension levy will affect staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7060/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.

A preliminary estimate shows that the total amount to be paid by personnel in my Department arising from the pension levy will be in the region of €1.083 million in 2009. This is an average of €4,431.26 per whole-time equivalent employee. All personnel in my Department will be subject to the pension-related deduction.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Taoiseach to provide the range of payments in his Department. What is the lowest amount being paid and to what level of income does that apply? What is the highest amount being paid?

Why, despite the promises made by various Ministers before the implementation of the levy that it would be tweaked to take account of the concerns of those on very low incomes, did such tweaking not take place before its implementation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will have to provide the details on the Deputy's first question separately. With regard to his second question, I indicated on the day the pension levy was introduced that we were prepared to listen to proposals, but they would have to be on the basis that the €1.4 billion would still be obtained. Unfortunately, no such proposals were forthcoming. The levy is an imposition, obviously, but one must consider it as part of the full mandatory deductions, including PRSI, income tax, and health or income levies. If we consider this total picture, including the imposition of the pension levy, we will see that an unmarried person on a salary of €20,000 would have total deductions of 11%, while a person on more than €100,000 would have deductions of more than 43%.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People recognise the scale of the economic problems we face and they are willing to contribute. The Taoiseach will understand this because he has met many people from around the country. They are saying they will contribute their share on two conditions: first, that the contribution will actually go towards sorting out the problem; and second, that it is seen to be fair.

Patently, the social partnership and trade unions in particular consider the pension levy to be unfair. They have made the point that dealing with it in isolation does not bring the sense of fairness about which they speak. As a consequence, social injustice is perceived to exist. Clearly there are opportunities for others who are not caught in this situation to make contributions.

Does the Taoiseach believe that the pension levy passed by the Government is fair? Does he intend to reconsider it in the context of the budget which will be announced in early April in order to deal with the perception of unfairness which exists among so many people? Perhaps he will comment on whether the question of unfairness as a consequence of the pension levy will be addressed in his proposals to the House on the new budget. I do not know whether ICTU members will decide to take to the streets but if the Taoiseach deals with the perception of unfairness or states his intention of doing so he might prevent a lot of activity on the streets at the end of the month. Does he feel that the pension levy is fair and does he intend to use the budget to be announced in April to address the outrage that has arisen due to the perception that it is unfair?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These questions pertain to the Taoiseach's departmental staff.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question of the pension levy formed a major part of the €2 billion in necessary savings which were agreed within the framework of social partnership. The alternatives were to consider social welfare provisions or non-pay, non-social welfare current expenditure. We had to seek savings from non-pay, non-social welfare current expenditure of more than €300 million in addition to the €1.4 billion from the pension levy and a further €300 million in capital savings. Everyone understood and agreed that immediate savings had to be found. If everyone agrees that was the amount to be found, one has to make an alternative proposal on what part of the service provision or social welfare provision the Deputy considers it fairer to reduce in order to deal with what he regards as unfairness. Every additional imposition presents a difficulty from somebody's point of view. An attempt was made to portray this as a simple initiative taken in isolation but it is part of a wider process of adjustment which has to take place and, indeed, a requirement that is all the greater given the deterioration in the public finances since its announcement.

As a public service employer, the reason we had to consider the pensions aspect and seek a larger contribution towards the availability of a public service pension after retirement is because it represents a significant asset compared to what those in the private sector now have available to them given the serious deterioration and, in some cases, the extinction of pensions for which they have paid. The economic costs of these private sector pensions have been met in full. It is well recognised and not disputed that the full cost of providing a public service pension would be a far greater imposition than what we have now decided upon. This simply represents an increased contribution as distinct from seeking the full economic costs of the pension, which would be the requirement of a private pension provision. These are important distinctions and the advantage now resides with public service workers in a way that is not available to private sector workers. Apart from that there is a greater degree of job security for those in the public sector and that is an important aspect given the many job losses we are seeing in the private sector as a result of the change in the market place and the reduction in demand for goods and services on an ongoing basis. It is in that context that the question of fairness must be discussed.

One does not expect a unanimous outcome to that debate but there must be an objective analysis of the difficult choices available to Government as to where the savings could be found and who could best provide them in terms of the benefits that accrue with employment in the public service vis-À-vis social welfare allowances, the money that goes to providing health services and the day to day costs of providing materials, goods and services necessary for services for the public.

If one were to look at it in that way, perhaps one would see the Government's decisions in this matter were grounded in trying to be fair in all circumstances, recognising that any extra imposition is regarded by anyone when it is not universal as being more unfair on them than on others.

There are considerations in that area that must be articulated so that people will understand the motivation behind the necessity for this €2 billion expenditure measure and the fact that it is the first of many adjustments that will have to be made, both in terms of expenditure and taxation in the months and years ahead as we try to ensure the economic viability of the State is maintained.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An mbeidh athruithe ar bith don cháin seo? Will there be any amendment to this so-called public service pension levy? I mo thuairim, ní tobhach é ach cáin ar sheirbhís phoiblí, it is not a levy but a tax on public service. Ar éist an Rialtas leis na ceardchumainn agus na daoine eile atá i gcoinne na cánach seo? Does the Taoiseach agree that people in the public service are willing to pay their fair share as long as the burden of taxation is fairly placed on all who can pay, and I emphasis the words "can pay"? Mar cheist dheireanach, cé nach cáin chothrom í seo, would the Taoiseach be willing to sit down with the trade unions to find a more effective and fairer way to raise money to meet the State's current straitened economic situation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government made efforts to bring forward necessary measures. For the supplementary budget, we have made it clear that we are available to take any constructive ideas from anyone, including people inside and outside this House, on how best to address the serious issues confronting us at present. None of it will be painless and none of it will be immediately popular but it is necessary and it is the duty of Government to discharge that responsibility and I look forward to people on the other side of the House constructively contributing to that if they so wish.

Deputy Ó Caoláin refers to the pension levy as a tax on public service. It is not intended as a tax on public service, it is the imposition of a further contribution well short of the economic cost of a public service pension which is being sought from those who work in the public service and will have the benefit of that pension after their working life is over. That is an asset or benefit that is not available to many hundreds of thousands of workers in other sectors of the economy, some of whom have sought to prepare for retirement by providing the full economic cost of a supplementary pension that will not now be available to them because of the serious deterioration of pension fund values, one of the main casualties of the recent crisis.

We do have a fair and progressive tax system in this country and the levy is in keeping with that principle. Working examples concerning actual pay demonstrate that, as a rule, total deductions as a percentage of gross pay after the pension contribution are greater for those on higher rates of pay than lower ones. For example, an executive officer on the first point of the pay scale, €32,179, who joined after 1995 will have a total deduction of 22% of gross pay; whereas an assistant principal, also on the first point of the pay scale at €69,659, who joined after 1995, will have a total deduction of 38% of gross pay, when one takes everything into account.

The progressive trend is also observed in examples of pre-1995 civil servants. An executive officer on the first point of scale at €30,566, will have a total deduction of 18% of gross pay; whereas an assistant principal, also on the first point of the scale at €66,179, will have a total deduction of 33% of gross pay.

Across the Civil Service on all grades and all pay scales, from clerical officer to principal officer, the total deductions are higher as a percentage of gross pay as the pay goes higher. That is a progressive principle.