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

1. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform last met; and when it is planning to meet next. [20059/17]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform last met; and when it is scheduled to meet again. [21878/17]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

The Cabinet committee on social policy and public service reform last met on 10 April 2017. The next meeting of the committee has been scheduled for 15 May.

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

Once again, the divisive and dishonest campaign to pit public sector workers against private sectors is under way, this time in the form of the review on public sector pay by the hand-picked group which recently published its report on this issue, thus perpetuating this utterly divisive narrative. I wonder whether this sub-committee dealing with public sector reform believes it should challenge this divisive narrative and recognise that public sector workers, even with this so-called phased restoration the Government is talking about, will still in 2018 be worse off than they were in 2009, by €200 if they are on a salary of €30,000, by €1,250 if they are on a salary of €40,000 and by €2,000 if they are on a salary of €50,000. This is so-called pay restoration. Nine years later, public sector workers will still be worse off than they were when all of the so-called emergency started and targeted their pay and made them scapegoats for the financial crisis produced by bankers, developers and politicians.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. The time is up.

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

Similarly, on the issue of pensions as I understand it, it is outrageous that we will get rid of the pension levy but replace it with a pension levy, that is, the pension levy stays when the emergency, we are told, is well over and public sector workers have paid through the nose for the past nine years for the crimes of others.

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

First, on the role of the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy and public service reform, it provides a basis for cross-departmental co-ordination in the delivery of the programme for Government in the areas of equality, social policy and social inclusion, including a focus on particularly vulnerable groups and to support continued improvements in the area of public service.

I welcome the report from the commission chaired by Mr. Kevin Duffy. The programme for a partnership Government committed the Government to establish a public service pay commission to examine pay levels across the public service and in line with this commitment, the Government agreed in principle in July of last year to establish that independent advisory body to examine public service remuneration and pay rates. The terms of reference were finalised after an open consultation process that was carried out on the role and methodology of the commission and how it should approach this trifold relationship. The terms of reference provided that the commission would be advisory in nature. The Government retains the right to negotiate terms and conditions directly with the employees.

For its initial report, the commission was asked to provide inputs on how the unwinding of the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation should proceed having regard to particular issues: the evolution of pay trends in the public and private sectors based on published information, a comparison of pay rates for identifiable groups within the public service with prevailing non-public sector market rates, international markers and comparisons where possible and the state of the national finances.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach.

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

Finally, on this matter, the role of the Government is to strike an appropriate balance between what we pay our public servants to ensure we can attract, train and retain staff and compete in the labour market for those skilled staff who need to provide public services and the primary consideration for any employer, which is the ability to pay its employees. The State is no different from other employers. The process of direct negotiations will begin shortly.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all will be aware that public sector workers have taken significant cuts in pay and in terms and conditions since 2009 and key issues in this sixth round of pay talks - it would be useful to know when the Taoiseach thinks they may begin - will be equal pay for equal work and the timely and full unwinding of FEMPI. Sinn Féin believes that pay restoration must prioritise those earning below €65,000, with pay increases for the low paid. That is especially important since the low to middle-income workers in the public service have not had a net pay rise in nearly ten years.

The Taoiseach states that the committee has a responsibility, among other matters, for equality but the Government refuses even to acknowledge that equal pay for equal work is an issue despite the fact that it affects An Garda Síochána, nurses and teachers and is the source of considerable unrest and discontent. The Minister is now talking about extending, not replacing, the Lansdowne Road agreement, and it disproportionately benefitted those earning over €65,000. We want to see a new agreement that will address this issue of equal pay for equal work. We want to see the timely unwinding of FEMPI with the focus first on those on low and middle incomes. There is an opportunity - I do not have much confidence that the Government will seize this opportunity - to move fairly on these issues. Does the Government accept the need for a single-tier pay structure and would the Taoiseach commit to placing both the issue of equal pay for equal work and the focus being on low and middle-income workers on the agenda for the first round of pay talks?

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

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has stated clearly the value that the State places on its public employees and the work that they have done and the sacrifices that they have made over the past period. The State also must have regard to its legal obligations to unwind the FEMPI measures, which were imposed on public servants during the crisis and significantly reduced their remuneration and pay as a consequence. The commission report reflects those requirements but it makes particular note of the fact that control of the public service pay bill is a central determinant of budgetary policy. It will be a matter for the parties to negotiate a timeframe that will provide for the orderly unwinding of the financial emergency legislation having regard to maintaining sustainable national finances and competitiveness, other Government spending priorities, the public service reform agenda and equality considerations on public service pay.

I hope that the Minister will be in a position to commence negotiations quickly following engagement between the civil servants of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the representatives of the unions involved. The Minister is anxious, on behalf of Government, to commence that as quickly as possible and to have an extension of the Lansdowne Road agreement. It is in the interests of everybody to have a balance here of affordability, sustainability and fairness, and the Minister has made those points clearly to date.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have supplementaries from Deputies Micheál Martin and Howlin.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last week, I had an exchange with the Taoiseach on the attempt by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Varadkar, to massively exaggerate the amount of money which was lost on welfare fraud. Of course, no fraud is justified and the State has an obligation to catch fraud but, equally, the Minister of the day has an obligation to be balanced in his approach. When I mentioned that the claim to be saving €500 million was bogus, the Minister stated loudly here that he had misled no one and that the figure concerned both fraud and administrative errors.

The true figure is that savings of €41 million have been projected for this year on fraud and other savings seem to be due to overpayments for a variety of reasons. To be fair to the Minister, I went back and checked his statements. The campaign he launched refers solely to fraud. Its slogan is "Welfare Cheats Cheat Us All". At the launch the only figure mentioned was €500 million. The Minister stated fraud can cost the State tens if not hundreds of millions.

We all understand there is a campaign under way and it is important in terms of the Minister's last minute attempt to create some form of policy record for himself, but the facts show he was being a lot less than the straight talker he claims to be. Given the Taoiseach's role as chairperson of the social policy committee, will he tell us if the committee signed off on this misleading campaign, which estimated that €500 million has been lost in fraud-----

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

Leo has his Rebuilding Ireland campaign.

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

Simon.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----when the actual amount in question was €41 million? I received the figures in total savings from the Minister in reply to a parliamentary question.

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

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the focus on pensions which seem to have dominated the preliminary discussions on a new pay round in the public service. The single pension scheme we introduced came into effect from 1 January 2013 now encompasses 15% of all public servants and is growing each time new public servants are recruited. It has been found by the review group to be equal to what is available in the private sector and confers no pension benefit over and above what would be normal. Does the Taoiseach accept that public servants employed prior to 2013 were employed on the basis of a contract which specified getting a pension after payments for 40 years based on their final salary? That is what they contractually worked for over a period approaching 40 years and it would be invidious and wrong to change the goalposts now towards the end of their working career. Does the Taoiseach also accept that many public servants now have an integrated pension, so the notion that there is not provision for it is untrue because people who pay PRSI and have the contributory State pension calculated as part of their benefits are paid from the Social Insurance Fund? There is provision on an annual basis for that. Does the Taoiseach debunk the notion that because of real difficulties in private sector pensions that somehow the solution is to worsen public sector pensions significantly? Does he agree that would be the wrong approach? Surely the approach is to try to improve pensions available for private sector workers to the degree that used to be available to them before the economic collapse?

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

In respect of the question from Deputy Martin, the committee did not consider the campaign by the Department of Social Protection. On the previous occasion we met we discussed unallocated cases from Tusla, the national women's strategy and single affordable child care, which is an issue that is being dealt with here. This campaign has been launched by the Department of Social Protection itself.

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

It is a solo run.

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

The Minister is campaigning.

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

I will check with the Minister for Social Protection on the specific point Deputy Martin raised in respect of fraud or other issues.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only point is that I do not think the Department of Social Protection should be used by any Minister as a prop for his or her personal campaign.

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

I take the Deputy's point.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Taoiseach would agree with that.

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

I will come back to Deputy Martin on it. Deputy Howlin raised an important point. The report sets out a basic bedrock for valuable discussions and it is not for me to predetermine what the Government outcome on it might be. As I understand it, the next step is that officials from what was at one time Deputy Howlin's Department will engage with personnel in the public sector unions and the Minister will start the negotiations as soon as possible for an extension of the Lansdowne Road agreement.

In respect of pensions, the commission was tasked, first, with assessing the overall value of the public service remuneration package, which includes not only pay but pensions. That was provided for in the terms of reference of the commission. The work undertaken in that regard was both significant and important and I commend Mr. Duffy on his report. The approach of the Government to the issue of public service pensions is based on the fiscal sustainability of providing public service pensioners, current employees and future employees with public service pensions now and into the future. Deputy Howlin made a specific point on that. Both the State and its employees who are public servants have a shared interest in securing the sustainability of the pension system. Reform measures over the years such as integrating the occupational pension with the contributory State pension, extending the minimum retirement date from 60 to 65 and the introduction of a new career single public service pension scheme linked to the Civil Service pensions, CSP, age and the consumer price index, CPI, have contributed to the future sustainability of the public service occupational pension system.

However, we know from right across the economy that pensions have become increasingly expensive. The outputs from the commission confirm that and they reflect the values of the pension entitlements for various pension cohorts currently within the public service. The proposal by the commission that any agreed adjustment in pension contributions for public servants in respect of pension benefits should be linked with the discontinuance of the pension related deduction, PRD, imposed by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest, FEMPI, 2009 Act has been noted. Those are matters which will undoubtedly feature in the proposed public service pay discussions. That is best left for that engagement and interaction to take place.

The commission considers that the values identified for those on legacy standard accrual pension schemes and fast accrual schemes should be addressed by providing for an increased employee contribution for those who continue to benefit from such schemes. Rates of contribution are a matter for negotiation. While the commission considers it would be reasonable to apply any agreed adjustments in contributions in conjunction with the discontinuance of the pension related deduction currently imposed on public servants under the FEMPI Act, in the commission's view the value of public service pensions could be reasonably fixed in a range of 12% to 18% over private sector norms for pre-2013 standard-accrual pension schemes but that fast accrual schemes incur greater costs. The point raised by Deputy Howlin is an important one and I expect it will feature centrally in the discussions.