Results 561-580 of 15,555 for speaker:Eoghan Murphy

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I do not see how, from that, if the Government decided to define pay rates as not including allowances and increments, it would be a valid excuse for the unions to pull out of the agreement.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: My next point concerns the June report issued by the implementation body. It mentioned the agreement, the appendices at the end of it and the list of different things to measure. For the next report, might we essentially have the appendices and, after each point in them, an update as to what has happened on that point?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: We did this in my former place of employment. One would point out what had been implemented, what was coming in two months' time and areas in which there were difficulties so we could go through it and see how much of it had been done. As Deputy Donohoe said, the June report is good and an improvement on the previous one but I think we can go further in terms of the detail we provide.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I would include them and let people know that we have done all this in this sector, ticked all these boxes and have done these additional things as well.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: It would be really helpful to have that from all sides of the table, including those who are not so favourable towards the agreement and those who are.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: My next point concerns the implementation body and its mandate or terms of reference. For whom is the implementation body working?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: In whose interest is it acting? Is it the public sector, the public, the unions or the Department?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: Is anyone from outside the public sector represented on the implementation body?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: The agreement on work practices, pay and so on is in the national interest, yet the implementation body includes no member from outside the public sector.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: The group's trade union members are acting in the interests of their unions' members.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I can only consider the progress made through the eyes of the implementation body. If its members were acting in particular interests that are not necessarily in the national interest, I would not be able to tell from their conclusions or recommendations. For example, we discussed the Government-appointed board members of banks and how they had worked in the interests of shareholders rather...

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I do not doubt the changes made. My point concerns a potential conflict of interest or objective bias. A union representative on the body might decide to work in the national interest, but one cannot get around the fact that he or she has an objective bias, given his or her background. Should the body have a member from outside the public sector?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: As the independent chairman, would Mr. Fitzpatrick find it more helpful to have external eyes?

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: Again-----

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: We are straying into an area that Mr. Fitzpatrick cannot discuss further.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I wish to discuss the methodology for calculating pay and non-pay savings and the overestimation in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: Yes. The Department underestimated the savings achieved because it did not agree with the calculation guidelines which were subsequently factored in by Grant Thornton.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: The Department believed it needed to use the regulatory impact analysis, RIA, guidelines. Its opinion was that the guidelines that were meant to be used overestimated savings because of the additional figure of 40%.

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: I understand the mid-point issue. I wish to discuss the 40% allocation for non-pay costs. According to the guidelines devised by the public sector, the savings in moving people out of an office are calculated by adding an additional 40% of salary to take account of factors such as-----

Public Accounts Committee: Public Service Agreement 2010-14: Discussion with Implementation Body (11 Oct 2012)

Eoghan Murphy: Yes. While the 40% allocation was in line with Department of Finance guidelines, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine considered it excessive when compared with the actual costs incurred. Are the numbers for savings inflated by as much as 40%? If the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine does not agree with the guidelines, why are we using them?