Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 13: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason he is not proceeding with plans to reduce pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers in the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35136/11]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 30: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details of the basis upon which the Presidential salary of €249,014 per annum, approximately seven times the average wage, was agreed as an appropriate salary at a time when unemployment is over 14%. [35184/11]

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 39: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details of the basis upon which the salary cap of €200,000 was agreed as an appropriate salary ceiling for senior civil servants, Government Ministers and an Taoiseach. [35183/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 30 and 39 together.

In April 2009, the then Minister for Finance requested the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector to undertake a review of top-level public service pay, to take account of the changed budgetary and economic circumstances and developments in the private sector pay environment and by reference to pay rates for similar posts in the eurozone. This review formed the basis for the reduction of the pay of the Taoiseach by 20% with effect from January 2010 and subsequently a cumulative reduction of 25% with effect from January 2011.

The current Government considered that the reductions adopted did not go far enough and decided on its first day in office in March to reduce the salary of the Taoiseach further by adopting a cumulative reduction of almost 30% bringing the annual salary of the Taoiseach to €200,000 in accordance with commitments in the party manifestos. Pro rata reductions for Ministers and other officeholders were also adopted. These reflect the Government's policy of salary reduction and restraint for higher earners in the public sector.

More recently, in line with the decision to reduce the salary of the Taoiseach, Ministers and senior officeholders, the Government accepted my proposals to introduce a general pay ceiling of €200,000 for future appointments to higher positions across the public service, a general pay ceiling of €250,000 for future appointments to CEO posts within commercial semi-State companies and a voluntary waiver system of up to 15% for current post holders who have salaries in excess of the relevant pay ceiling.

Following the adoption by the people of the recent referendum on the remuneration of judges, I considered it more appropriate and expedient to provide for the new statutory provisions for the remuneration of judges together with the necessary legislative provisions giving effect to the administrative reductions applied to the Taoiseach and other senior officeholders through a single dedicated enactment rather than providing for the latter in the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011, the Second Stage of which this House has already passed. Accordingly, as I indicated previously, it is my intention to delete the remuneration provisions from that Bill on Committee Stage and to incorporate them into a new Bill providing for the remuneration of judges and senior officeholders, which I intend to publish later this week. This approach will ensure the statutory requirements on remuneration will secure early passage through the Oireachtas.

Since 1973, the personal remuneration of the President has been set in the Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Act 1973 at the rate paid to the Chief Justice plus 10%. Consistent with this legislation, the proposed new salary rate for the President of €249,014 per annum equates to the proposed new rate for a future new entrant Chief Justice at €226,376 plus 10%.

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

I thank the Minister for his reply. The latter part of the Minister's reply dealt with my specific question of why we are not proceeding with this matter under the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011, Second Stage of which has been already passed by this House. That legislation is already before the Houses and could complete its passage through the Houses quickly. I accept that the Minister wishes to deal with this issue separately as a result of the referendum and that he will shortly publish the relevant legislation. Which legislation does the Minister expect will first complete its passage through the Houses? Which is a priority for the Minister?

The single scheme pensions Bill only affects new entrants and will not result in any cost savings for 40 years. Given that there is currently a moratorium in place this is not the most urgent legislation. While we support early passage of that legislation the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme) and Remuneration Bill 2011 deals with current salary rates. Perhaps the Minister will set out the expected timescale for passage of the new Bill and will comment briefly on the reason the relevant provision is contained in it and if that was the correct way to go about this.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The more appropriate vehicle is financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation which deals with judges in the same manner as every other public servant. For correctness, I am happier that it be done on that basis rather than as part of unique legislation. It will be part of general FEMPI legislation. I am taking the opportunity to also statutorily reduce the pay of the Taoiseach and Ministers, currently being done on a voluntary basis.

The Bill was approved by Government on Tuesday. I hope to publish it tomorrow. There is nothing controversial in the legislation and with the goodwill of Members opposite we will be able to ensure its passage through both Houses within a matter of days. It is important that the extra provisions come into effect from 1 January next. On the pensions Bill, there is a certain urgency about it in that as soon as it is enacted the provisions will apply. The sooner it comes into force, the sooner it will apply.