Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 96: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason payroll costs are estimated to rise by almost €1 million in 2009 in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29716/09]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 97: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason payroll costs are estimated to rise in 2009 in the Company Registration Office, the Competition Authority, FÁS, Science Foundation Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. [29717/09]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 98: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the reason that payroll costs are estimated to rise in 2009 even though staff numbers will fall in the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Labour Court and the National Employment Rights Authority; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29718/09]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 96 to 98, inclusive, together.

The 2009 Revised Estimates for Public Services, which were published by the Department of Finance on 23 April 2009, include details of estimated pay costs and staff numbers for 2009 for my Department, its Offices and agencies. The published Estimates also show the provisional outturn figures for 2008.

The allocation for my Department's central pay costs for 2009, under Subhead A1 of my Department's Vote, is €36.040 million. The outturn under this Subhead for 2008 was €35.554 million, a difference of €486,000.

During the early part of 2008, my Department was carrying a significantly higher number of vacancies than usual, largely arising from the turnover of staff as a result of the decentralisation process. The pay outturn for my Department for 2008 was therefore lower than expected. By the end of the year, a significant number of the vacancies had been filled and, consequently, the full year cost of these posts has been factored into the 2009 Estimate. This results in the 2009 Estimate being higher than the 2008 outturn.

The trend in funding in my Department's Vote can be more readily appreciated if the 2009 Revised Estimate provision is compared with the 2008 Revised Estimate provision rather than the 2008 outturn. The 2008 Revised Estimate for Subhead A1 in my Department's Vote was €36.364 million. The 2009 Revised Estimate for the Subhead, at €36.040 million, is €324,000 lower than the comparable 2008 figure.

Notwithstanding the reduction in the Estimate, the lower 2009 pay allocation for my Department must meet the full-year cost of pay increases awarded from 1 March 2008 and 1 September 2008 under Towards 2016. During 2008, my Department had to pay only ten months and four months respectively of these increases.

The same general principles outlined above apply in respect of the Offices and agencies referred to by the Deputy in his questions To assist the Deputy in making comparisons, the following table shows the pay provision as published in the 2008 Revised Estimate Volume for each of the Offices and agencies referred to, and the comparable pay provision as published in the 2009 Revised Estimates Volume.

It will be seen that with the exception of Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland, there has been a decrease in the pay funding provided for these bodies in 2009 compared to the 2008 Estimates provision. This is consistent with the Government's decision in July 2008 to reduce the public sector pay bill.

The increased pay allocation for Enterprise Ireland under Subhead D1 of my Department's Vote relates to the full-year cost of additional posts sanctioned in 2008 for the Central Coordination Unit which liaises with the County and City Enterprise Boards, as well as the cost of posts which transferred to Enterprise Ireland from Shannon Development. There were corresponding reductions in the Exchequer's Capital grant to Shannon Development in 2009 in recognition of this transfer.

In the case of Science Foundation Ireland, an additional 10 posts were sanctioned with Department of Finance approval in 2008 and the full-year pay cost of these staff has been factored into the 2009 Estimate provision under Subhead F of my Department's Vote.

Finally, I would point out that the staff numbers published in the 2009 Revised Estimates Volume in relation to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), the Labour Court and the National Employment Rights Authority present a snapshot of staff serving at a point in time and do not reflect the fact that actual numbers serving vary from month to month in line with normal staff turnover. Furthermore, staff numbers in individual Offices of my Department can vary as a result of redeployment of resources to meet work demands. For example, I have recently assigned additional staff to the ODCE because of the increased demands on that Office as a result of the investigation into the affairs of Anglo Irish Bank. However, numbers elsewhere in my Department will reduce as a consequence.

The Deputy will also appreciate that so far during 2009, the Government has introduced a range of measures to reduce public service numbers. These include a moratorium on the filling of vacancies, an Incentivised Scheme of Early Retirement, and other flexible working initiatives. These schemes are only now beginning to have effect and we will not see the full impact on the Public Service pay bill until 2010 and later years. In general, however, I fully expect that the initiatives I have referred to will lead to an overall reduction in numbers beyond those indicated in the Revised Estimates Volume. Appendix