Seanad debates

Thursday, 17 December 2009

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

 

4:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I had anticipated being in a position to speak while the Minister of Sate, Deputy Mansergh, was in the House, but I would like to ask the current Minister of State to listen to what I have to say and take it to his colleagues in the Government. Having made his contribution, Senator Walsh should perhaps let the Minister of State listen to what is being said in the House as a matter of courtesy.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, to be a channel to the other Ministers involved in this Bill. I am deeply sorry to learn of the ill health of the Minister for Finance and I wish him a speedy recovery. He has been a very strong, decisive and clear voice in this difficult time and that has made quite a difference to the prolonged dithering of the Government until now.

One of the things that struck me about the speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, was the language he used. This doom-laden language is very worrying. The Minister of State referred to the continuing threat to the economic stability of the State and added the following: "However, the magnitude of the adjustment required in the public finances and the budget decisions necessary to effect this process in 2010 have involved decisions which have adversely impacted on all sectors of society". The note of real alarm in confronting the situation is clear, if one analyses the texture of the language used.

While I have supported many unpopular decisions and would be prepared to support others, I cannot and will not support the extraction of 5% of salary from those earning under €30,000. This measure is wrong. The issue can be addressed in other ways, for example, as Senators Harris and Walsh noted, by taking on those at the top of the professions. Hospital consultants cleverly chose not to seek confrontation on the immediate issue, but they are claiming a 15% retrospective pay increase they believe they are owed. They must live in the real world in which the rest of us are stuck.

With regard to relations with the trade unions, as a member of three trade unions, I respect the trade union movement. I must differ with my distinguished colleague, Senator Harris, who made a remarkable and splendid speech in terms of rhetoric, in that I do not want to live in a world dominated by the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Margaret Thatcher. If I had to choose between that pair and the worst trade unions, I would take my chances with the latter. I know the Senator and I disagree on the issue, but that is my position.

I would like to know from where the leaks came because I believe the negotiations were, to a certain extent, sabotaged. I have my suspicions about who was leaking.

The situation is very difficult for the Government. I believe it realised during the negotiations that the figures did not stack up. We have been told there was a gap of at least €250 million between what the trade unions indicated they could deliver and what the Government estimated would be delivered. In addition, a question arose regarding the timescale. The unions did not do themselves any favours by allowing spokespersons to suggest on the airwaves that what they were getting was 12 days unpaid annual leave. That did not go down well. We must, however, understand the difficult circumstances for all sides.

The position is even worse than what has been suggested. Several speakers referred to green shoots. Regrettably, in this country the green shoots are provided by multinational companies. There is little in the way of green shoots from indigenous manufacturing or the export industry. I wish there were more that we could celebrate.

I am astonished that nobody, apart from me, has spoken out against Standard & Poor's and Fitch which are ratcheting up the moneys Ireland pays all the time. They are a completely discredited collection of crooks. These are the people who give a triple A rating to Iceland, a rating that has been cited in legal cases by various local authorities up and down the neighbouring island. It appears these rating agencies find it difficult to distinguish between Ireland and Greece. It is about time the international community took on board this shower and gave them all a bit of a dose.

To return to the issue of the trade unions, as a trade unionist, I was disappointed to hear union officials state the breakdown of the talks more or less marked the end of reform in the public service. It cannot be the end of reform because if it is necessary at this time of crisis, it must be delivered. Reform is not something that can be sold by trade union officials or members. I say this as a loyal trade union member.

With regard to the tables setting out the salary reductions for holders of certain offices, I welcome the fact that we are all taking a haircut. It is appropriate that people such as Senators should take even greater cuts in salary and I have no doubt we will have to do so eventually. Regrettably, the dithering about the cut in the Taoiseach's pay means it does not matter a tuppenny damn. The Government missed the boat because the public mood has changed. If the cut had been made at the beginning, it would have been believed and reassured the people. The Government may as well not bother doing it now because it will forever be "too little, too late", that phrase we hear on every morning chat show.

As I stated, my principal objection to the Bill is the 5% cut in salary for public servants earning under €30,000. I do not know how this group will be able to bear the cuts, given that they have been hit with the various levies and so forth. This cut will crucify them. We at the top should support those at the bottom.

I will address two specific groups to which I referred previously which should not have been included in the cuts for various reasons, some moral and some technical. The first group is research staff on contract in the universities. I am sorry the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, is not present because I raised this issue on the Adjournment some time ago. I return to it because the text of the Bill states the cut will apply to employees of public service bodies. Apparently, this definition has been stretched to include contract research staff in third level institutions. The proposal is unworkable because it does not take account of the unusual employment status and circumstances of these staff. It is also manifestly unjust and unfair.

The pay for research staff is an adjunct of research funding awarded by various grants and funding bodies, including private sources and non-profit foundations. In that case, pay to contract researchers is obviously not part of public sector salaries paid directly by the Government. Frequently, salaries for research staff are not supplied by the taxpayer. Even where such pay is provided indirectly by the State, it is usually the product of a competitive awards process linked with specific projects such as those funded by the IRCHSS, the IRCSET or SFI. What about philanthropy, the Wellcome Trust and other organisations which invest in third level? It is from these that we will get the next generation of innovative scientific ideas on which the export industry will be based. The fixed salary for researchers is stated in their contracts.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.