Seanad debates

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)

An interim award of 6% from the review body on higher remuneration was paid in 2007. In the reduction in pay, that is being netted off. In other words, for people who were supposed to have a 10% reduction, the reduction will only be 4% of the amount prior to 2007 because the 6% interim award is being paid. That is correct. However, within all of that, there is unfairness. There was another group, principal officers in the Civil Service and principal teachers in schools, who had a much lower award made around the same time of 1.5%, 2% or 2.5% which was not implemented. For the system to be fair, that should also be netted. In order words, if 7.5% is taken off principal officers it should only be 6% in order to be consistent with what we did for those who were covered by the review body on higher remuneration. I hope this is clear as it is complex. The interim award was paid and that is being netted against the 10% reduction, in order words, it is being paid in and then 10% is taken off. Compared to the later group which did not come under the review body on higher remuneration but which got an award, in particular principal officers and principal teachers and related groups, that 1% and 1.5% should be netted against the reduction and does not require a change in the legislation but it would be fair.

There is one other group which has been treated with some cowardliness by the Government. Before making this point I wish to state I have no self-interest whatever and I stand to gain nothing. I am talking about people who were elected to the Dáil and the Seanad in 2002. I have been involved in the negotiation of the salaries of TDs and Senators for many years. I recall the time when the Government was slow to pay and we agreed across the table that instead of paying what in trade union terms is called "the rate for the job", there would be a delayed payment to save the Government money and so increments were introduced. These are common in the Civil Service and in the public service. They were also introduced for politicians, TDs and Senators, whereby after seven and ten years they would receive certain increases. The Government decided to accept a media description of these as bonuses. They are not bonuses. They are the rate for the job being paid on a delayed basis to save the State money. It is grossly unfair on those younger politicians that they would not be allowed get their increment like every other worker in the public sector and in the Civil Service. I know I will get no thanks for saying this but it should be put on the record. It has nothing to do with myself, I have no self-interest whatever and I stand to gain nothing from it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.