Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

5. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is considering or has had discussions to date on the proposal to restore all rights, entitlements and conditions that pertained prior to the Haddington Road agreement upon its expiry in July 2016. [23709/14]

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe that any of the hard-pressed families or workers or those out of work across the State are living with anything other than the absolute realities of the decisions taken by the Government and its predecessor. One such group of workers are low paid public and civil servants who have endured cuts to their take home pay of anything between 18% and 20% since 2009. A commitment has been made to the lowest paid within the public service and Civil Service that their pay levels will be restored and my question asks the Minister whether he has had discussions with his colleagues in government to that effect.

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

To achieve the general Government deficit target of below 3% of GDP by 2015, all components of the public finances must make a contribution. I have acknowledged repeatedly that public servants have made a significant contribution to the fiscal recovery of the State through a number of measures which have helped to reduce the public service gross pay bill from its peak of €17.5 billion in 2009 to an estimated €13.63 billion, net of the pension related deduction, in 2014. In this context, reducing the Exchequer pay bill has been an important element in reducing public expenditure. While unprecedented efforts have been made to reduce the cost of the public service pay bill since 2009 through the operation of the financial emergency legislation and other measures, pay costs still amount to 29% of all current expenditure.

The Haddington Road agreement, which came into force on 1 July 2013, included a number of measures, including pay reductions for those public servants on annual salaries in excess of €65,000 under the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. These measures provided for a reduction of the public service pay and pensions bill by an additional €1 billion by 2016.

It is a three-year agreement covering the period to the end of June 2016 and forms the basis for current public service pay policy over that period. Through its provisions, the agreement is also delivering an unprecedented structural increase of almost 15 million additional working hours annually to be deployed for the benefit of the people of the State. The productivity is contributing to the maintenance of our public services at a time of significant restraint.

Under section 12 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013, I must review the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009-2013 annually and cause a written report of my findings to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. As part of that review I am required to consider whether the measures continue to be necessary, having regard to the purposes of the legislation. My next such report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 30 June 2014.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Paragraph 1.15 of the public service agreement 2012-2014, the prior agreement, reaffirmed that priority would be given to public servants with pay rates at €35,000 or less when reviewing the re-instatement of pay levels. The Minister referred to the fiscal ruination of the State; many low-paid public and civil servants are facing fiscal ruination in their own homes.

A woman from Dublin who is a clerical officer wrote to me recently. Her weekly wage, before tax and deductions, is €445.71. She is being crippled. A number of the additional work requirements such as additional hours to be worked under the Haddington Road agreement have placed an additional burden of child care costs on this woman. She finds herself in an unsustainable position. Along with many other low-paid workers in the public service and the Civil Service, she finds herself figuring that she would be better off to stay at home and not to work. I ask the Minister to answer the question whether he plans to re-instate the wage levels of these low-paid workers in the public service and Civil Service. Has the Government discussed this matter? Does the Minister intend to honour the commitment made to these workers?

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

The Deputy has quoted from the Haddington Road agreement. It is my intention as I faithfully negotiated it with all trade unions. It was the first time that every public service trade union voted for an agreement because people were seized of the necessity to save the country at that stage.

The structure of the Haddington Road agreement is to require pay reductions from those who best are able to afford it. The only cash reductions were for those earning in excess of €65,000. That was the measure we negotiated as a Government in order to protect those on low pay. However, we asked for additional working from them, for example, if working less than 37 hours a week to work for 37 hours and if working more than 37 hours to work up to 39 hours per week. This has been largely done. This allows us to deploy that 15 million additional hours to reduce agency pay and overtime rates and to make the savings. In some instances, those savings have been rolled into what I have called the Haddington Road dividend, to allow for additional front-line people to be employed at a time of very scarce resources. I can assure the Deputy that the provisions of Haddington Road will be fully adhered to by the Government.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume, then, that in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the Haddington Road agreement, that those moneys will be re-instated to those workers. The Minister should bear in mind that whatever about workers having been seized of the necessity to balance the books, to save the day and to save the State, as he asserts, if I recall correctly they were certainly seized by the prospect of the Minister waving a big stick and telling those very workers that if they were not agreeable to cuts to their wages that he would legislate for them anyhow. Does the Minister remember saying that? Does he remember that debacle because the workers have not forgotten it?

The reality of life for large numbers of low-paid workers in the public service and Civil Service is that they are struggling and struggling badly and along with everyone else they now face the prospect of additional taxes, not least a water tax to which the Minister is committed.

Can the Minister say - not in coded language but in very straightforward language - that he will honour the commitment made to those on pay rates of €35,000 and less, that they will have their proper salary re-instated and will he tell us when that might happen?

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

I have a good memory and I recall. Unlike some members of the Deputy's party opposite, I have a very good memory of everything in which I was involved in the past. I remember the day of the Haddington Road agreement. I remember the Deputy opposite standing on the plinth decrying the agreement, sight unseen.

It had not yet been published and the Deputy was against it because that is the default position of her party. It did not matter what was in the agreement. The Deputy was against it before the text became available or any worker had been asked to cast a vote on it.

The Haddington Road agreement remains an important part of the painful and difficult adjustment that will give a future to all workers and ensure we have affordable public services. We could have embarked on a different path. The Deputy's party wanted to send the troika packing and keep their money. We would not have any public services or an economy if that course of action had been followed. People will remember that.