Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The manner and context in which this legislation is being introduced is utterly wrong and unacceptable. This Bill is an attempt to pre-empt and subvert the democratic decision of public sector workers to reject the Government's attempt to impose further cuts in their pay and conditions. It shows the Government was not acting in good faith in the negotiations. While it showed a willingness to negotiate, it also put a gun to the heads of public servants by giving itself the power to impose whatever measures it wished on them.

If it had negotiated with or dealt with public sector workers in good faith, none of this would have been necessary because the original Croke Park agreement was supposed to run until the middle of 2014. It broke faith with public sector workers in the first instance by seeking a new deal. Subsequently, public sector workers rejected a second deal in a democratic ballot, despite the brow-beating and threats deployed by the Government and certain trade union leaders as they sought to force workers to accept further attacks on their pay and conditions. The Government did not accept that decision and has decided instead to ram through this legislation in an attempt to pre-empt another vote. This appears to be a sinister, pincer movement by the Government, on the one hand, and sections of the trade union movement, on the other. Its aim is to demoralise ordinary workers and force through a further attack on them as quickly as possible before people's feet have even touched the ground. That is utterly reprehensible.

Despite what the Minister, Deputy Howlin, stated with regard to the arrangements with the troika, it is simply not true that there are no alternatives to doing what is proposed. Some of us on this side of the House have pointed out on numerous occasions that there are fairer alternatives to attacking public sector employees, low and middle income workers in general, the unemployed and the vulnerable. In the past week or two the evidence relating to those alternatives has been presented to us. For example, one of today's newspapers outlines how if one firm, Abbott Laboratories, had paid the 12.5% tax the Government claims to impose on the profits of corporations, it would have been obliged to hand over in excess of €200 million in tax. However, that firm actually paid 0% tax. We have discovered that Apple, with €22 billion in profits, only paid 0.5% tax. Other companies on the relevant list, such as Google and Facebook, pay pitiful amounts in tax. Instead of taking a little more in tax from these staggeringly wealthy corporations, the Government is intent on inflicting further suffering on ordinary workers, imposing more cuts on their incomes and reducing their quality of life to an even greater degree. These people have been hammered during the past five years and, as a result of this legislation, they will not receive a pay increase for the next eight years. What is proposed is despicable and undemocratic and it should be resisted.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Friday's mail brought two items to me, the first of which was the hard copy of this misnamed Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Bill. The second was my SIPTU centenary membership card celebrating the legacy of James Connolly and Jim Larkin. I was obliged to pinch myself on both accounts. In the first instance, this has to be the worst named item of legislation in the history of the State. Initially I asked myself whether those in government had come to their senses, had taken stock of the irrefutable evidence to the effect that wealthy multinational corporations pay a pittance in tax in this country and had finally decided to take emergency action to deal with this matter. Instead, we find that "Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest" is a fancy term for slashing public sector pay. This must count as one of the most outrageous items of legislation ever introduced in this House.

The reason this Bill has been introduced is because trade union members had the effrontery to exercise their democratic right and reject proposals to worsen their pay and conditions. Rather than acknowledging that democratic vote, this Government, which includes the Labour Party - an organisation which purports to represent workers - has decided to repackage and rebrand the deal to which I refer and force it back in front of the workers to whom I refer. Just in case they might have the audacity to reject the deal again, the Government has introduced this legislation and is stating, "Right lads, we have the gun here and the choices are quite simple: either you shoot yourselves or we will blow your heads off". We absolutely reject the notion that this is an appropriate response in a modern democracy. In actuality, it is completely abhorrent.

This Bill gives the Government the power to reduce the pay of public servants and increase their working hours. This is happening against the background of the loss to date of 30,000 public sector jobs. The legislation makes provision for the axing of even further jobs. It also provides for increased working hours, a pay freeze for up to eight years and lower pay for new entrants. It is somewhat ironic that the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, launched a heroic campaign last year in respect of proposals to take on new nurses on salaries that would only amount to 80% of those of existing nurses. Only eight people applied for the 1,000 positions advertised. Under the current deal, the Government is recommending that new entrants should receive salaries which amount to only 85% of those paid to existing staff. In addition, a suspension of increments will apply in respect of those in receipt of salaries of under €65,000 per annum if their unions do not sign up to the deal. The Bill also eliminates overtime and deals a solid blow to pensioners. The latter is particularly disgusting in view of the fact that pensioners were not given a say in respect of the agreement. The Government is talking about cutting the pensions of those in receipt of pensions of less than €32,500.

The myth that was perpetrated to the effect that the Labour Party, in government, would cushion the blow of Fine Gael has been exploded by the legislation before the House. Divide and rule is now the order of the day. Under this policy, trade unions from certain sectors are arguing that the Government should put the pay of workers in other sectors rather than touching their members. This is the complete antithesis of trade unionism and of the tenet that an injury to one is an injury to all. A solidarity campaign should be launched against the wealthy in society who have got away scot free to date. A struggle by public sector workers would be supported by every citizen as the only way to defend the public interest in this country.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The discussion relating to this issue seems to focus on pay and on how much it costs to pay people. It has been stated that civil servants in Ireland are paid more than their counterparts in other countries. However, one does not hear the other side of the argument. In the same way that there are two sides to a balance sheet, there are two sides to this debate. The aspect of this matter which is not being discussed relates to what the Government has done to reduce the cost of living. It is not the case that civil or public servants want to be millionaires, to take two, three, four or five holidays per year or to drive around in really big and expensive cars. All they really want is a decent quality of life. At a meeting members of the Technical Group had with representatives from the troika, a discussion took place about a particular newspaper headline in which it was stated that someone in this country earning €65,000 could not afford to survive. The lads and lassies from the troika found this extraordinary and the guy from the IMF said that some of its top economists only earn €65,000 per year and can survive on that amount. They could survive on that amount not in Ireland but elsewhere. The reason for this is that it does not cost a fortune to live in many other countries where, we are told, civil and public servants are paid less.

One of the reasons people cannot afford to live here is because the Government has done nothing about people's debt. There has been no real debt write-down. The only way one can get such a write-down is if the bank is willing to give it to one under the Government's Personal Insolvency Act. Of course, if one is involved with Independent News and Media, however, one will receive a write-down. One particular owner of that institution received a €10 million write-down from a bank that is 99.9% Irish-owned. If the Government arranged write-downs for ordinary people, perhaps they would then be in a position to survive on less. However, it has not taken any action in this regard. Neither has it done anything about the cartelisation of Irish business. Fine Gael stated that it was going to do something about our absolutely useless Competition Authority and that it would ensure the latter would be properly resourced. It has not been properly resourced and there are still only two gardaí assigned to investigate problems with cartels throughout the country. It is because of this that people are obliged to pay high prices in shops and that local authorities must pay more for raw materials such as concrete for building roads or whatever. As a result, the cost of living in this country is massively high.

There is no proper accountability among local authorities, so rates are high. Money is being wasted left, right and centre and businesses are then obliged to pass on the cost involved to consumers. The Government stated that it would do something in respect of upward-only rents. However, action has not been taken. This is despite the fact that Deputy McNamara of the Labour Party has stated that, in legal terms, something could be done. Those in government would want to make up their minds because their lack of action is ensuring that prices are being kept high.

As such, one needs a small fortune to survive in this country. The Government has put the cart before the horse. It has had two and a half years to bring prices down but has not done so. Now, it expects to get blood out of a stone. This will not work.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has no mandate for this draconian, anti-trade union legislation. It has no mandate for this outrageous attack on public sector workers. It has no mandate for these austerity policies. Remember what the Government parties stated during the general election - "Frankfurt's way or Labour's way", the vulnerable would be protected, the bondholders would be burned and the banks would not get another cent. The Labour Party has finally and completely turned its back on its roots, history and supporters. The Bill is outrageous anti-trade union legislation and the Labour Party and its Minister should be ashamed.

Free elections, free trade unions, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and academic freedom are among the pillars of democratic society. Free trade unions are unions that can say "No" to State demands and vote freely on the merits of issues without incurring legislative penalties. Individuals must retain the right to join or remain in a trade union of their choice without legislative penalty. These rights are being circumscribed in this legislation.

Not only is the Bill likely to be unconstitutional, but it is also in breach of international human rights law. Its introduction by a Labour Minister is shocking and unprecedented. The only comparison dates from 1941 when a Fianna Fáil Government introduced legislation to limit freedom of association that was later declared unconstitutional. This Bill heavily circumscribes the right of workers to be in trade unions of their choice, penalises them for not being in "Yes" unions and curtails their right to freedom of association.

In 1913, striking workers refused to sign what was called the paper, an undertaking not to join Larkin's union. In spite of significant state pressure, brutality and hunger, workers refused to sign it. Some 100 years later, the Labour Party and its Minister are trying to force trade unionists to sign another piece of paper, an agreement that will be registered at the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, and have the effect of imposing cuts on other unions and workers.

The Bill has other outrageous elements, including the introduction of cuts, without any consultation, to pensions valued at more than €32,500 or, in the case of surviving spouses, approximately €16,000. The Minister has once again stated that this will be the last ask, but how can we believe him? He reneged on the commitment under the Croke Park agreement to restore cuts to lower paid workers. There was also to be no further ask during the agreement's course. He has broken both clauses and cannot be believed.

In the name of James Connolly, Jim Larkin and the 1913 workers, I call on the Labour Party to withdraw this anti-trade union legislation.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In August, we will celebrate the struggle of workers in Dublin to organise a trade union. Recently, I had the privilege of reading Strumpet City again for the first time in a while. It reminded me of the reasons for having trade union leaders - workers broke bad laws to get recognition for their unions, to have the right to organise and to seek higher pay and proper conditions.

Undoubtedly, members of the Labour Party, including the Minister, Deputy Howlin, will take part in the celebrations and make speeches about that heroic struggle. The 1913 battle was in response to bullying by employers, in particular the infamous William Martin Murphy and IBEC's predecessor. They locked out any worker who did not sign a statement disowning the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, ITGWU, Larkin's union. Now, a Labour Minister is engaging in bullying tactics to force public sector workers to accept cuts in pay and conditions. A gun is being put to their heads - accept the Haddington Road agreement or else. This and previous Governments have used the imperialist tactic of divide and conquer, pitting worker against worker and sector against sector.

The right of workers to vote on a proposal's merits is being undermined by the Bill, a coercive clause in which threatens to freeze the increments due to workers in the public sector unless they sign up to the agreement. The Bill contains a provision for the suspension of incremental progression for three years for all public servants unless they are covered by a collective agreement that modifies the suspension's terms and has been registered with the LRC. As such, unless a trade union signs up to the agreement, its members' increments will be frozen for three years even if they are paid less than €65,000. This draconian measure is far beyond anything contained in the original Croke Park II proposals.

Some €1 billion is still being taken out of these workers' pockets and, consequently, the economy. This affects workers' ability to put their children through college, which is the only path forward for many people if they are to avoid leaving the country. This is down to a Labour Minister increasing the cost of college. The Bill may push workers who are under mortgage pressure over the line.

The Government is taking the path for which it criticised Fianna Fáil. If it does not get the answer it wants, it changes the deal slightly while retaining the same austerity measures and puts it again. It is absolutely-----

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask the Deputy to conclude.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In voting against Croke Park II, workers did not want to be like turkeys voting for Christmas, in that if the Government wanted to take €1 billion, it would apply the 7% cut. I hope that they will make the right decision when voting on this agreement.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Deasy, who is sharing time with Deputies Bannon, Kyne and Connaughton. Deputy Deasy has four minutes.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A part of the Bill deals with a reduction in the payment of pensions to members of the public service under occupational pension schemes or other pension arrangements. Many public servants are unhappy with another reduction in their pensions, particularly retired civil servants on low pensions. However, it is obvious to everyone, even people in the public service, that many in the private sector have lost all or most of their pensions. In terms of pensions, most of the pain is being felt in the private sector.

One such private sector fund is the defined benefit pension scheme at Permanent TSB. This issue has developed as a consequence of management's reaction to a request by the Minister for Finance to review pay and benefits and to find savings of between 6% and 10%. The request followed on from a report by Mercer, entitled "Remuneration Review of Covered Institutions", which was commissioned by the Minister for Finance and published last March.

Permanent TSB's management has advised the Minister of its plan to make the required savings by ceasing payments to the defined benefit pension scheme and diverting funds to the new defined contribution scheme. It is estimated that the saving will be approximately 8% per annum. I have received a response from the Minister regarding this issue. From that response, I gather that the arrangement has his blessing. The Department of Finance should reconsider the matter.

The effect on the individuals in question would be devastating. The cessation of payments would force the trustees to wind up the scheme. That would have a massively detrimental effect on active and deferred members and could potentially reduce future benefits by up to 50%. Nationally, approximately 3,000 staff – past and present - are affected, including approximately 120 people in my constituency of Waterford.

In Permanent TSB there are two separate defined benefit schemes, and one is in better shape than the other. There is a liability of €127 million in the pension fund to which I refer. As I understand it, in 2010 it became clear that many defined benefit schemes were in deficit and the Department of Social Protection asked the trustees of funds to submit proposals to deal with the deficits. A funding proposal or recovery plan was required for all funds in deficit before the end of November 2010, but that was postponed indefinitely. The feeling among staff in Permanent TSB is that senior management at the State-controlled bank – it is important that we remember that – are finding the savings by hitting the ordinary staff member rather than taking any of the pain themselves. The question staff of Permanent TSB have is whether the Minister for Finance should allow management to wind up unilaterally a pension scheme belonging to a State-controlled bank without negotiation or before any other potential options for saving the fund have been properly examined. I can understand why they would ask such a question. Anyone would.

We all understand that many defined benefit schemes are in trouble but in this case there is a very strong sense that other possible solutions have not been examined, for example, ring-fencing benefits before a certain date and from that date forward all contributions would go to a defined contribution scheme, with future benefits payable depending on fund performance. Other possible solutions include allowing employees to make larger contributions, extending the retirement date or doing away with consumer price index, CPI, increases. I feel strongly that this is something the Minister for Finance should reconsider.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a very significant Bill which is being introduced as a financial emergency measure in the public interest to try to stabilise the public finances and meet our obligations in terms of the reduction of our deficit. Everyone is aware that we are in difficult economic times and our financial circumstances mean we face tough choices. If we do not make the correct decisions now, it will have catastrophic consequences for the future of the economy and will threaten the job prospects of the current and next generation of Irish people.

I am strongly aware that quality, not quantity, is the way forward to create an effective, well-honed economically viable Government. However, even with the considerable pruning of excess by the Government, more needs to be done to achieve the change on waste that the public knows is taking place. As never before, it is time for the concept of jobs for the boys to be thrown out. An inflated Government that panders to the deflated egos of politicians is a luxury we can no longer afford, in the same way that we can no longer afford bonuses, allowances for committee Chairs and other committee officeholders. In addition to the provisions contained in the Bill, I wish further wide-ranging Oireachtas reform to be introduced as a direct response to the calls from those who should be calling the tune, namely, the taxpayers.

It is hypocritical of politicians to call for cutbacks and to take from the old, the young and the vulnerable yet refuse to share the pain themselves. We should never put the interests of bankers and developers before those of ordinary people. Old habits die hard. Freedom of information has revealed to taxpayers the lifestyle and excesses of some current and former politicians. People are no longer willing to shoulder the burden alone.

At a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last week, we were treated to information on the trappings of power and the waste with which Fianna Fáil used public funds to refurbish the offices of Ministers and former taoisigh. This included the spending of €250,000 on an office for the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy John McGuinness, when he was a Minister of State, and €181,000 on an office for Mr. Bertie Ahern, after he stepped down as Taoiseach and was serving as a backbencher and which he seldom used. The public are entitled to know how that was allowed to happen, as they have to make good the deficits caused.

The current leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Micheál Martin, was present in the Chamber this evening. He was the senior Minister in the same Department as the then Minister of State, Deputy John McGuinness, when €250,000 was spent on his office, and he served in Cabinet throughout the Ahern and Cowen eras. He must come into this House to make a statement on the amounts wasted on ministerial offices and elsewhere in his 14 years as Minister. He should also explain the reason he told some of his Fianna Fáil colleagues to stay away from tonight's Private Members' debate. However, that is another issue.

With many of my colleagues, I have been frustrated by the seeming inability of successive Governments to call elected public representatives and senior civil servants to account. It flies in the face of moral and ethical accountability for former senior Members of the Oireachtas and senior civil servants to be perceived to be above the law and for them to retire on massive pensions. That is an outrage and an insult to democracy, as it adversely impacts on everyone who depends on the integrity of public representatives and civil servants in positions of authority not to use power for private gain nor to deflect attention and retribution. It is also an insult to honest, hard-working citizens who abide by the law of the land. There is no place to hide for most people who do otherwise. No one must be allowed to be above the law. Leadership is important in a community of citizens.

In the Bill we show our will to demonstrate our appreciation of the very difficult times that many families and individuals have experienced. This is a defining time for our country, where public services and remuneration must be radically overhauled as we face real challenges. Reform is vital to the national interest. Public service reform is not a criticism of public servants. Public servants have a fine tradition of dedication and make a major contribution to the economic and social life of this country. Citizens and businesses expect a modern public service to improve continually and deliver services faster, better and more cost-effectively. We must improve structures to make the public service more citizen-centred in delivering services and in the provision of infrastructure. The public must have a greater input into policymaking to ensure services are designed and delivered to meet the highest standards. A greater knowledge of the services available and access to them with ease is important, as that attracts the confidence and support of citizens.

When I was first elected to the county council 28 years ago, the manager, county secretary and county engineer were in command. I got a decision on a query the same day on which I made the request. Now, one has to wait weeks for a decision because of the bureaucracy and red tape inherent in the system. The same goes for Departments, the HSE, SUSI, and other bodies where one has to wait ages for a reply. More efficiency is required to achieve greater savings. We would also save money if we used improved technology to help in the delivery of services such as e-mail, telephone text and the Internet, for example, and give people choices on their use. Better value for money and greater efficiency is important. There is nothing wrong with radical reform and transformation. There are approximately 400,000 talented people working in the public service and the key is to unlock that potential to the benefit of all citizens.

A number of important views and issues were taken into account in the finalisation of the Bill before us. Partnership involves consensus and eliminates the right to accept what is favourable and reject what does not suit. The Bill contains measures to reduce the top-heavy nature of Government and the public service pay and pensions bill by 2015, ensuring the pain is equally shared by all sectors of society, whether it is the Government, politicians or certain public servants on rates of pay in excess of €65,000.

The backs of the taxpayers have been broken by the burden of carrying the rich and privileged for too long. No sector of society should be immune from the negative impact of the economic downturn. This Bill is important, in that Members of the Oireachtas are showing leadership by putting their own ship in order.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but I must call the Deputy's colleagues.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I was going to move on to the subject of white-collar crime, I hope to have an opportunity to do so on another day.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Deputy will have another opportunity.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over the past two years, there has been a clear stabilisation of the public finances and there have been many positive events signalling Ireland's economic recovery. It must be acknowledged that getting to this point has not been easy, has required great efforts by the vast majority of citizens and has affected almost all aspects of Irish life. It is sad and disheartening to observe some public commentators practically hoping that things would go wrong for whatever reason, be it because they considered they would be proven right or for political benefit. The focus of such commentators has been on the negative with little attention paid to the positive developments that have been crucial to restoring this country. It is timely to recall some of the aforementioned positive developments that have taken place. These include the promissory note deal, which removed the onerous and overbearing annual repayment requirement of €3.1 billion and reduced significantly the amount the State must repay, the fulfilment of the Government's commitment to protect the weekly social welfare rate and to leave unchanged income tax rates, as well as political reform, including reductions to the salaries and allowances of Ministers and Deputies and an injection of transparency with the abolition of unvouched expenses. In addition, there has been a €2.5 billion investment in job creation measures, including the first ever co-ordinated and measured action plan for jobs, which hopefully will continue to deliver real results. The vulnerable have been protected by restoring the minimum wage and exempting 330,000 people from the universal social charge and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has been created. It is the first Department to focus on maximising the effectiveness and efficiency of the public services in the history of the State.

This last point is important because an inescapable fact is that 35% of Government spending is on the public sector pensions and pay bill. During the so-called good times, the private sector, through companies paying a variety of taxes, was able to support the increase of pay in the public sector, as well as growing public sector pension costs. At present, however, Ireland has a private sector that is recovering slowly from the worst global economic crash in living memory. Many private sector workers have found themselves, through no fault of their own, out of work and dependent, often for the first time, on social welfare payments. An interesting point, albeit one that appears to have been forgotten by many, is that if a company in the private sector experiences economic or financial difficulties, it must take decisive action to reduce costs in the hope that the viability of the company can be secured. In many cases, this involves payroll reductions for the simple reason that the latter often is a company's largest cost. The same notion must apply to the public sector, which does not operate in a vacuum. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of all Members to play a part in the restoration of the State's finances, the State continues to be obliged to borrow approximately €1 billion per month to meet the shortfall between revenue and expenditure. It simply is inconceivable that, as the Government is obliged to close and eliminate the deficit, one of its largest sources of expenditure would be sacrosanct and remain untouched.

The Bill before Members is twofold. First, it introduces the legislation that would permit changes to the level of remuneration in the public sector which, as I have stated previously, will be necessary if Ireland is to complete successfully its economic recovery. Second, and most importantly, however, it is necessary to prevent such measures from applying to public sector workers and unions which have signed up to the public sector stability agreement or the Haddington Road agreement. This agreement is the result of the Trojan efforts on the part of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, the Government, representatives of public sector workers' unions and obviously, the chairman of the Labour Relations Commission, Mr. Kieran Mulvey. Very little in life is ever achieved by descending into conjecture and argument or by simply refusing to enter into dialogue. This agreement is proof of the benefit of staying at the table, listening to viewpoints, acknowledging problems, considering workable solutions and respectfully negotiating. Everyone involved in this process deserves to be commended on their dedication and commitment to the process.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As this country continues to spend more than it earns, thereby storing up debt for future generations, Members must take on the difficult task of decreasing expenditure until the first step along the route for recovery is achieved, namely, spending within our means and therefore, I welcome the provisions of this Bill. It aims to reduce the remuneration of public servants earning more than €65,000, to reduce the pension of former public servants and to suspend increments for three years. Reservations have been expressed about reducing the pensions of former public servants but it must be remembered that for those in receipt of pensions of €32,500, this will reflect a reduction of 2%, while for those in receipt of pensions of more than €100,000 per annum, it will represent a contribution of 28%.

A number of the Bill's provisions are welcome and long overdue. Redeployment measures will be revised but the guideline redeployment distance will remain at 45 km. I believe this to be sensible, as many families could not cope with the additional costs redeployment could place upon them. Incidentally, I also believe an overhaul of the transfer system should be carried out to identify opportunities to transfer staff, where it would benefit both the person involved and the service in general. Given the Minister is keen to reduce public service numbers, I also believe the Government should give serious consideration to extending the availability of career breaks within the public service to allow those who are in a position to and who wish to take a break to so do, thereby freeing places for new graduates who are finding it very difficult to enter the workforce at present.

The health service continues to take a large percentage of the country's income and it is only natural that health and education are two areas the Government will continually seek to preserve amid difficult financial circumstances. While innovative measures have been put in place in an effort to maximise the effectiveness of the resources currently deployed, this has placed an increased workload on health care staff across all areas. I welcome the fact that expenditure on agency and locum staff is to be reduced with directly employed nurses and interns providing the compensatory hours. I also welcome that health centre staff who work on Sundays, traditionally a family day and a day of rest, are to be paid at double time for the work involved. Another aspect of the Bill's provisions concerns the suspension of increments for three years. Forgoing money one never had in some respects is much easier than having existing income reduced but many people have borrowed money in the belief their wages would increase incrementally in future years and I acknowledge the proposed suspension for three years will cause hardship to many. As many cuts to income are being made across the board, with more to come if our finances are to be brought into order, fairness is key. People must perceive these cuts to be fair and that they apply to all. I welcome that the Bill provides that public servants affected will include Members of the Oireachtas other than the President, as well as the Judiciary. The need to ensure that those who have most contribute most must be uppermost in Members' minds at all times and I believe this imperative is reflected in the Bill, which also places a significant burden on higher-paid public servants, both serving and retired, as well as affecting all public servants through the suspension of increments.

Before concluding, I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has handled the negotiations to this point, as well as the trade union movement and Mr. Kieran Mulvey of the Labour Relations Commission. When the topic of conversation is reducing one's pay, it certainly will be neither easy nor popular. However, before the Minister concludes his contribution to the Second Stage debate, he should indicate whether he still believes the €300 million in savings will be achieved this year and whether the €1 billion in total savings is achievable over three years. The country is at a stage at which the Government must lead. It has set targets and must now follow through on those targets because that will be important, as this is part of the troika programme, to get us out of this situation. The title of the Bill reflects its purpose, as these are emergency measures in the public interest and while they are unpalatable for all those affected by them, they nevertheless are necessary if the required savings to get this country back on track are to be achieved.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand I have until 10 p.m.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the debate will adjourn at 10 p.m., the Deputy will have some time on the next day.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill but must note that like so many other extremely important legislative items, this Bill is being rushed through the House and this is entirely of the Government's making. It is time that when Members are trying to effect fundamental change, they take the time to do it properly. It frequently happens that efforts to get an answer or a fix result in the creation of a chaotically complicated system that no one understands fully. The first point with which I will agree is one which when in government, Fianna Fáil was trying to explain to the members of the current Administration, namely, that if one is continuously spending more than one is taking in, it is not sustainable and something must give. I am glad the Government realises that for the long-term stability of the country, one must balance the books.

In terms of the second thing the Government has realised, when in opposition it thought that by cutting the salaries of a few higher paid people it would raise huge sums of money. Anybody could have told it that the public service is a pyramid, with many more people at the bottom than at the top, and therefore the amount of money it would save by making significant cuts at the top end would never be great in financial terms but this Government always tried to give the impression in opposition that this alone would save the billions of euro needed to be saved. When the hard reality hit, however, it realised it does not work like that and that its basic mathematics were wrong. I believe it is important that the people at the top take the biggest cuts by a fair distance, not because it will save the Government a great deal of money but because it is important from the point of view of example.

I am surprised to see the proposal in the Bill to cut those in the public service earning over €185,000 a year by only 10%. It is derisory and it is very difficult to explain the reason for those cuts to people who are experiencing cuts in different directions, heaped with extra expenses, living on €30,000 and €40,000 a year and who are working hard. When the salary of someone on €185,000 a year is averaged out, it probably works out at 6% or 7% of their total salary. I do not believe people think that is fair or leading by example.

We are then told that these cuts are only temporary. I hope they are only temporary for those at the lower end but at the higher end there is a need to bring down high pay in the private and the public sectors to reasonable proportions because the wealth of society is not only the total wealth created. We would look to societies throughout the world where those with huge wealth and those in huge poverty live side by side. There are two things a country must do. The first is to create wealth and the second is to distribute it fairly but, unfortunately, in the western world the second one seems to be losing out, and each group at the top end appears to argue cogently that they are entitled to these enormous salaries when ordinary people are struggling. We must have a much more comprehensive debate than this Bill will allow on the entire structure of wages in our society.

I heard a Deputy boast earlier that we did not cut social welfare. I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, is in the Chamber. If my memory serves me right he is in the county with the biggest number of farmers on farm assist. Does he know what he has done? If a farmer is earning €100 a week on farm assist from his farm, he or she has lost €30 per week in the past two years courtesy of the Minister of State's Government. He or she is effectively paying 100% tax on the farm income, in other words, one euro of social welfare is taken off for every euro earned on the farm income.

The Government has hit lone parents very hard. I cannot understand, when we have a female Minister, why the Government has hit pensioners who had a low average because they may have worked between the ages of 18 to 25 or 30 and took time out to rear children, which in my view is a very important opportunity that some people chose or were forced into. It is not necessarily the only choice but it is a valid choice that society should recognise. They then returned to the workforce. For some reason that Minister hit them hugely in terms of their pensions, and these are people at the bottom end.

We then had the across-the-board cut imposed on pensioners. The Minister of State would say the Government did not touch the headline rate. It did not; it just did it through the household package but a euro is a euro, and it has cut the household package significantly. At the same time for those earning more than €185,000 it proposes to make a cut of 5.5% on any amount up to €80,000, 8% on the amount between €80,000 and €150,000, 9% on the amount between €150,000 and €185,000, and 10% on the amount over €185,000. To someone earning €200,000, therefore, that 10% only relates to €15,000 of that salary. When it is averaged out the cut is between 7% and 8%. I will work out the figure in the next few days but it does not make any difference to the principle.

I believe it was wrong not to honour the Croke Park agreement in full and work it to its ultimate end because in terms of quality of service, there were huge gains to be achieved in honouring an agreement and seeing it out to the end of its term. In terms of the chaotic way all of this has been negotiated, when it could not get the union movement as a totality to agree, sweeteners were given and side deals done union by union. That is a very bad precedent in terms of public service negotiation. I can see in the future a template that the Government has created causing mayhem where certain unions it has now put into a very strong position will be able to negotiate extraordinarily good deals for themselves by this union by union methodology. That is a wrong way to approach this process.

I note there has been an amendment to the issue of the increments but just because public sentiment does not understand the structure of public service pay because it has not been explained properly does not give anybody an excuse to create inequalities. I know we did it but I have never been a great proponent of the starter pay being lower and people who have done the same period of service as other workers not being able to achieve the same pay as other workers. I believe in the concept of equal pay. We have now gone from gender equalities to age inequalities. I cannot understand how it is fair that if one happens to be at the top of the increment scale one is immune to this particular cutback but if one is at the bottom, one gets the cut. Surely that is unfair. My belief is that all public servants in similar circumstances should be cut by the same amount. That one has got to the top of the scale should not make one any more immune to the cut than the person who is on a much lower salary and is now being held back.

The reality of the increment scale is that it was part of the public service wage. It would be fair to say that if the increments are abolished we would have to bring the lower ones up to the mean and the higher ones down to the mean, and the mean would become the new wage. There would be no saving in that on average because over time people were constantly leaving the public service or moving up to new grades and they were replaced by people at the bottom. The myth that increments were costing so many million a year was mathematically not true because if increments were abolished, we would have had to adjust the basic wage to the mean and we would have ended up with the average wage bill we have now.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to conclude. He will have nine minutes when the debate resumes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will look forward to my nine minutes.