asked the Minister for the Public Service the total number of full time public service employees whose average net take-home pay each week is less than (a) £100, (b) £125, and (c) £150.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Public Service Salaries.
3.
The information requested is not available in my Department.
In what Department would this information be available if it is not available in the Department of the Public Service?
I do not believe that this information is available in any one Department. The Deputy is asking about different wage categories whose average net take home pay is £100, £125 or £150 per week. In order to assess that, there would have to be an examination of the wages and salaries of all public service employees, together with the benefits and allowance claimed by them for taxation purposes. Other deductions from their gross pay would also have to be taken into account to ascertain how many had net pay in the bands mentioned. Information has never been compiled on that basis and to so do would be a mammoth job which would involve a number of different agencies.
I asked the Minister a simple question. Is he not very concerned about public service pay and has he not got all possible information in relation to it? If the pay of civil servants is computerised — as it must be — can he not say how many cheques under £100, £125 and £150 are issued every week?
The calculations are done by reference to the basic pay of personnel together with the estimated pay cost of numbers in each band and category. For example, local authorities or health boards would not be included in that assessment. The figures used for comparative purposes or for carrying out an exercise as to cost are gross figures, together with numbers.
The central data processing service which is a costly State enterprise in Kilmainham can be coded in whatever way somebody wishes but, if the Minister does not have these facts, surely he can give us an idea of how many civil servants are in certain categories? I know from experience that the computer system operates by grades. The answer is probably that nobody bothered to calculate it. Could the Minister say how many people are earning less than £200 per week?
In any one week.
The House should be aware that public servants are not paid through one computer. Civil servants, the Garda, the Army, teachers and health board personnel are included in the Exchequer pay bill. Local authorities are directly involved in Exchequer costs but are not in the Exchequer pay bill. Those personnel are paid in a variety of different ways, mainly through computerised systems. From the point of view of pay calculations, pay costs are calculated on a gross basis relating to the pay band and the number of staff in each pay band. An annual figure is then given for the gross pay band cost in the public service and, unfortunately, it has never been found necessary to compile the figures on the basis of net take home pay. Therefore, it is not available.
Members on this side of the House find the Minister's explanation incredible. At the end of its calculations the computer sends out a net cheque. Surely someone at the end of the computer could count the cheques coming out which were under £100 and so on? Is the Minister suggesting that he and the Government can have a serious approach to public service pay without the information regarding the number of people earning under £100, £125 and £150. Surely, in coming to decisions on public service pay that would be basic information needed to make any sort of judgment about our approach in any year to public service pay?
What the Government and I have available is the same basic information which Deputy Haughey and his Government had available to them when he was Taoiseach. It is on that information that the Government, and presumably his Government, adopted their strategy in relation to public service pay. The figures are compiled on a gross basis. The assessment of the tax impact on the overall gross pay figure is available to the Government. It has never been found necessary to assess the net take home pay in relation to individuals. The information is not available now and the time and expense necessary to do so is neither worthwhile nor beneficial.
I do not believe it.
Could I ask the Minister whether the public service provide any allowance for personal deductions by civil servants and is that why he cannot give the net pay in an individual case, as they vary so much? One individual might be saving £10 per week and someone else might be saving £30 a week. Is that provided for in the computer system which the Civil Service operate?
As the Deputy realises, because of the operation of the PAYE system in relation to some people at certain times of the year, a greater amount of tax is deducted from their pay cheque. In addition, there are a number of what are known as "check off" facilities which allow for items other than statutory deductions to be taken from the gross pay cost to arrive at a net figure.
The net figure could contain items such as suggested by Deputy Carey. From that point of view it is not considered beneficial to the State to know in any one week the net amount which an individual earns. The important figure, which has always been used, is the gross pay figure in the band.
I will allow a final supplementary question. We have spent 30 minutes on three questions and I do not know how that would fare in a cost-benefit analysis.
The Minister has set out a public service pay policy. I am asking him how he can arrive at that without having the kind of information I am seeking.
That is repetition.
How can the Minister enter into negotiations if there is this lack of information? If a trade union representative——
That was asked by Deputy Haughey.
If the Minister is told that 5,000 or 10,000 members are paid £100 per week or less, can he deny that? He cannot do so because he has no information available to him. How can he negotiate on public service pay without having that kind of information available?
I am surprised that the Deputy does not know that not only the Government but the trade union negotiators operate on gross pay figures.
What is important is what people get into their hands.
Will the Minister give us whatever information he has, even that based on gross pay?
That information was not sought.
4.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on wage increases for public service employees.
5.
asked the Minister for the Public Service the total sum of money allocated for wage increases for public service employees during 1985; and how it is intended to allocate this money.
6.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if, in formulating policy on public service pay, the Government considered the position of lower-paid public service employees; if any special measures are planned to improve their situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
7.
asked the Minister for the Public Service if he will outline his policy on the public servants' pay policy.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together. The estimates for the public service published on 15 November include provision, based on sanctioned pay rates, of £2,380 million for Exchequer pay and pensions in 1985. The budgetary discipline in the national plan requires that the Exchequer provision for pay and pensions in 1985 must not exceed £2,400 million. Accordingly, the maximum amount which could be made available in 1985 for increases in pay and pensions above the £2,380 million would be £20 million.
The Government's policy on wage increases for public service employees is set out in paragraphs 7.20, 7.21 and 7.22 of the national plan, Building on Reality, which indicates that achievement of the Government's public expenditure targets requires that the growth in the pay and pensions bill be severely restricted. In this context the maximum amounts which could be made available for pay and pensions in each of the years 1985 to 1987 are set out. In general, the Government's approach to keeping within these limits will be based on a policy of curtailing the growth in average pay per head in order to avoid severe reductions in public service staffing. They permit a nominal increase in expenditure in 1985 followed by a moderate increase over the remaining period of the plan. In particular, they permit the payment of special pay increases already sanctioned or committed under the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement including payments arising in 1985 and 1986. It is not possible to provide for any further special increases over the period of the plan.
I have invited the Public Services Committee of ICTU to discuss with me public service aspects of the national plan and the operation of the present machinery for pay determination. In this context I have indicated to the committee that I feel there is a fair measure of public consensus that there is a special need at present to protect the interests of low paid workers, and that this is an issue which could usefully be discussed with the committee in the context of the national plan.
The Minister's last comment dealt with low paid workers. Is he now admitting that he agrees the document he referred to is totally unrealistic? Is he prepared to provide additional funds for low paid workers outside the £20 million?
I did not say that.
In spite of the recent increases given to a number of State and semi-State companies, is the Minister still saying that the £20 million, which is roughly 1 per cent for public service employees with no special increases of any kind, is what is on offer to the unions? Does he seriously expect that the ICTU will meet him to discuss that?
I have indicated the parameters in my reply. I also indicated the concern which I think is evident in the community that at times like this the lot of lower paid workers should receive special attention and should be specifically addressed. I made that suggestion to the Public Services Committee of the ICTU in my most recent letter to them. In the context of the 1983 Public Service Pay Agreement I endeavoured to have the question of low paid workers, especially those with heavy family commitments and outgoings, addressed specifically in the context of that agreement, but that was not found possible at the time. I think that once again it is relevant to examine the position of lower paid public service workers at a time when we are endeavouring to contain expenditure generally and to meet certain targets with regard to public service pay. As is evident from the introduction of the family income supplement scheme recently, there is a recognition by the Government that the position of those in employment and who are on low pay should be specifically adverted to and given attention. I should like to be able to do that in the course of discussions with the Public Services Committee of the ICTU.
The Minister stated that £20 million is all that is available for public service pay and he has also said that he wishes to do something for low paid public servants. Will he tell the House how this will be done? The only basis I can see is a reduction in the pay of the remainder of the public service. If the provision is for 1 per cent for the entire public service and if the Minister is now talking about making some provision without it being additional to the money allocated, how can this be done? It is important that we know this if we are to try to follow his philosophy on the matter.
The Estimates for next year estimate the pay and pensions bill at £2,380 million. The Government's plan estimates that overall the public service pay bill should not exceed £2,400 million in 1985. The Estimates provision for 1984 was £2,376 million but the outturn figure is not yet available. The Deputy, like other people, can make calculations and come to various conclusions but it would be wrong for me to begin to engage in a discussion here that might more appropriately be concluded in the first instance with the Public Services Committee of the ICTU.
We should not have argument here in any event.
Will the Minister say——
I must call on Deputy Mac Giolla. He has three questions tabled and he has not yet been called. I must be fair to all sides.
The Minister must be fair with me. I asked a straightforward question.
I will come back to the Deputy later.
The Minister has told us that £20 million has been set aside for public service pay. In one of my questions I asked how it is intended to allocate this money. A sum of £20 million has been set aside for wage increases in the public service and there are 68,000 public servants. In setting out that money, will the Minister tell the House if the Government had some kind of plan or target? Did they set aside a certain average increase per head which amounted to £20 million or did they just set aside £20 million with a view to seeing how that works out? Was there some reason to set aside that £20 million?
As I said in reply to the questions, and as was said at the time when the plan was published, the overall expenditure figure for public service pay in each of the three years will mean there is provision for only a very nominal increase in pay during 1985. We have to look at the overall numbers employed in the public service, their respective incomes and the aspirations in the plan. There is provision for a very nominal increase in global terms. With regard to how that increase may be used in relation to the various categories in the public service, that is one of the subject matters I had hoped to discuss with the Public Services Committee of the ICTU. It would be inappropriate if I were to begin to engage in what might be regarded as negotiations with individual Members of the House regarding the specific determination of the overall public service pay provision for 1985 at this stage.
Is the Minister aware that the average industrial wage is £167,000 per week, men and women, and that there is a large body of public servants in regional hospitals and other such areas earning less than £130 per week gross, including Dáil ushers? Does he consider all those to be in the low paid category and will he give special consideration to them on that basis?
I know inflation has taken its toll but the true figure is only £167. I am very conscious of the position of the categories to which the Deputy has referred but I would find difficulty in defining the cut off point, the level below which a worker might be deemed to be low paid. In general there are large numbers of personnel in various parts of the public service who are earning considerably less than the average industrial wage. It is those earning considerably less than the average income that I would most like to see attention being given to. Some of those will be eligible for the family income supplement scheme, others might not be. The Deputy probably shares my view of the position?
Since Congress will not be meeting the Minister in the next few days perhaps we could get some information here. Did the Minister say there is no question of additional money in 1985 for the public service, though there will be a normal increase which will be split among the lower paid — that there will be no increases for the remainder?
There seems to be confusion among the Opposition about my remarks. Various formulae can be employed to arrive at the overall Estimate provisions in regard to pay and pensions. A derivative of those formulae might be found acceptable to the Government as long as a figure has been arrived at which would be within the provisions of the plan.
We appear to be endeavouring to have a debate on this.
I think the Minister mentioned a figure of £20 million.
I cannot start negotiating third hand, using Deputy Ahern either as a decoy or a go between for staff interests and me. We cannot negotiate across the Chamber of the House — it is difficult enough to survive in the Chamber of the House, never mind negotiating.
I will allow one more question by Deputy Mac Giolla.
The Minister said that some public servants may have such low wages that the State itself realises they will have to be topped up by family income supplements. Is he seriously saying that the State would pay such low wages that they would have to be topped up by family income supplements?
The difficulty I find with Deputy Mac Giolla is that when I endeavour to be helpful he very rarely recognises it. I did not say what the Deputy says — I did not use the words. I said there were particularly low paid public servants who would be qualified for the family supplement scheme and that people in that category are the people whom I would have a particular desire to help. They are within and without the public service. On agreed pay rates, dependent on the size of their families, there are people in the public service who will be eligible for the family income supplement.