Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 22 October 2026
10. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if he will commit to above inflation pay increases for public servants in any public sector pay deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [74553/26]
View answer12. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if he will ensure that any public sector pay deal prioritises lower and middle-income public servants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [74554/26]
View answer16. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation if the €1.2 billion provided in budget 2027 is adequate to meet the pay commitments in the public sector; if this will account for inflationary pressures over the course of 2027; and the steps he is taking to engage fully in resolving issues and ensuring pay is prioritised. [74422/26]
View answer18. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to provide an update on the progress being made on a public sector pay deal. [74754/26]
View answerMy question to the Minister relates to what is budgeted for public sector pay increases over the next couple of years. Is the €1.2 billion in budget 2027 sufficient when the inflationary pressures that are out there are taken into account? Does the Minister believe it is adequate to reach a sustainable settlement with the public sector unions?
I thank the Deputy and the other Deputies who have submitted questions. I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 12, 16 and 18 together.
As the Deputy knows, a group was appointed by the Government on Friday to undertake a focused and intensive exercise with the parties aimed at constructing a basis for formal negotiations at the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. Following positive engagement between the Government and the public services committee of ICTU over the weekend, a basis for negotiations on a new public service pay agreement has been established. I thank Mr. Kevin Foley, Mr. Owen Reidy and Ms Oonagh Buckley for their work, which has enabled the parties to progress into formal talks on a successor public service agreement.
These talks began on Monday under the auspices of the WRC. This marks an important stage in efforts to advance discussions on a new agreement. It creates an opportunity to move discussions forward in a focused and productive manner. Continued constructive engagement through dialogue will be important in supporting progress in the period ahead. There are issues of importance to both sides that they wish to discuss as part of these negotiations, and the process should facilitate a genuine exchange on those matters. The Government considers that agreeing a new public service pay agreement is the best way to provide clarity, predictability and certainty for our public servants, and we are also committed to our system of collective bargaining in the public service. We see the value in continuing a system that has successfully delivered fair and balanced outcomes for public servants and taxpayers alike while supporting sustained improvements in public service pay. We greatly value the work carried out by public servants across the country. Through their efforts in front-line and public-facing services as well as in supporting roles, they make a massive and significant contribution to the well-being of individuals, communities and the wider economy.
Given the confidential nature of the process, it is not appropriate to comment on specifics of any of the issues raised during the negotiation period. We have allocated the figure referenced in the Deputy's questions and made significant provision for this in budget 2027. That is in the context of many other measures that will help to make a difference, particularly with the cost of living, for all workers in the economy, but I cannot get into specifics today. I know people respect that because, as we speak, discussions are ongoing at the WRC.
Regarding the €1.2 billion, the feeling is that it is not sufficient. Will the Minister outline what headroom there is? I do not expect him to give details or figures from the negotiations because obviously, they have to be confidential. However, there are substantial pressures out there due to rising costs. Public transport, rent, fuel, home energy and mortgages have all seen double-digit increases. We no longer have single-figure increases in this country. They are double-figure increases.
On productivity, public servants are doing great work, but we need to get speedier replies from Departments. I have received replies six months after a question or letter was put in to a Department, and I am sure other Deputies have too. That is not sufficient and would not be adequate anywhere. That should be a central issue in the context of productivity, but I recognise the good work done by public servants.
If the Minister is reaching a settlement, and I am sure the unions are pushing this with him, those on middle incomes and at the very bottom, such as those at grade three, need a higher percentage increase.
We have already had a fair interaction about how we ended up in the situation of having the strike in the first place. Like everyone else, the Minister saw huge solidarity for those public sector workers who were out on strike. Like many others, I engaged with them. These are the workers we absolutely depend on. We are talking about council workers, civil servants and those who work in our hospitals. I was at the Ó Fiaich institute, DkIT and Bay Estate National school but I wanted to get to a lot more places. People wanted to talk and they were up for a fight. I am very glad we did not have a second strike day and that the negotiations are ongoing. It is about making sure we see a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We absolutely know the pressure people are under. What flexibility is there in relation to being able to identify the wants and needs of those who do absolutely necessary work for us?
Our record is clear. If you take the previous public service agreement from 2024 to 2026, we delivered cumulative pay improvements of 9.6% compared with cumulative inflation of 6.6%. That was achieved through the collective bargaining process and demonstrates the established framework can and does deliver real benefits for public servants. We want to ensure we have a new pay agreement that is fair and equitable for public servants. That is important. We also want it to be sustainable and affordable for the taxpayer. That is part of the broader negotiation process. Deputy Stanley raised the issue of productivity. In every public service pay agreement, the Government and the State as the employer seeks to advance and have a genuine and productive discussion with respect to wider issues and priorities around productivity and reform. That is understood by the trade union side as well. That is the process of collective bargaining.
We want to ensure we have a pay deal. We are in the middle of a confidential process, so I will not provide any more detail except to say we have made significant provision for a public sector pay deal and prioritised it in the budget in the context of moderating day-to-day spending in 2027. We want to see a successor agreement happen. We have listened to public servants and what they expressed last week and the Government has been consistent throughout the past number of weeks and months that we want to have a successor pay agreement.
With respect to Deputy Stanley's specific question, there would be key performance indicators in each Department as it stands in terms of replies. There may have been complexity with the particular issue the Deputy raised and that is why it has not been able to provide an answer. The Deputy should ask whatever line Minister is involved about it. The Deputy and his constituents should not be waiting months for a reply to an important issue.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I recognise some public servants do not have any more to give, particularly ones who are working on the front line. I am not saying it is in every Department but I have certainly had that experience and I have heard from Members on all sides of the House about delays in getting a response. I recognise that a lot of the front-line staff do not have anymore to give. The key point I would make is that we have to try to ensure that those who are on the lowest incomes in the Civil Service and in public service, whether in local authorities or wherever, benefit the most in terms of any pay increases. A percentage increase across the board can mean a lot for somebody on high pay but it can mean very little to somebody on low pay. That is very important. It is good talks are happening. Obviously, it has to be sustainable. I hope a fair outcome can be achieved. I ask the Government to keep its eye on that element of things and try to make sure we improve on what is there across the board in the public service.
We all want to see this pay agreement delivering for the workers as they deliver for us. The Minister has spoken already about significant provision but I am still working on the basis, and we have seen some commentary around it, that there is further headroom. While I accept he cannot get into details, I would appreciate if he could just give an indication that is the sphere we are in. We know this whole process was held up by talk of productivity and reform. A number of those who were on strike spoke about the changed nature of the work they are in, they are constantly changing and there are constant issues with reform. If we talk about everything from teachers right through, the piece of work that has to be done from an administrative point of view is very different than it was before. That is absolutely necessary.
I am never sure that in an overall pay agreement, you are going to get into the ins and outs of really specific reform and productivity, which we want to see. We do not need Croke Park hours where we just make up that something needs to be done because someone is getting a payment and where there needs to be some element of almost pretend productivity. People want to see people paid for what they do. If there are productivity issues that need to be addressed, they should be addressed but that is probably up to every individual Department.
I thank both Deputies for their comments. That was not what held it up. There were preliminary discussions and there was then a process of balloting for industrial action rather than continued discussions. I can only speak to the previous agreement and Deputy Stanley raised the issue of the lowest paid. That was an important piece of the last agreement and previous agreements too but talks are under way with respect to the most recent one. On Deputy Ó Murchú's point, the State as the employer has to put forward areas, in a genuine and constructive way in respect to every pay agreement, of reform and productivity. It is in everyone's interest, both the service user and the many workers who have ideas or inputs about how they believe they can deliver a better system for everybody in terms of their own workplace. We should not just frame it in a negative way. It is done in a positive way to deliver better public services with an overall expansion of public services and asking how can they be reformed. Aside from pay agreements, we always need to keep the focus on reform and more efficiencies so the people we all represent see more from the overall level of spend. That is very much distinct from pay agreements, which are done in different calendar cycles. We need to ensure that is a constant focus and it is.
