ANALYSIS:The Croke Park deal is largely intact with no provision for compulsory public service job losses, writes MARTIN WALL
THE GOVERNMENT for the first time has set out the amount it actually wants to save on the public service pay bill under measures allowed as part of the Croke Park agreement.
This year the Government will spend €16 billion on paying the 307,000 or so staff in the public service. The new plan says it wants to achieve a reduction in this figure of €1.2 billion by 2014 as a result of lower staffing levels, efficiencies produced under the agreement and the cut in pay for new personnel recruited.
Up to now trade unions and Ministers had spoken of the deal having the potential to unlock substantial levels of savings. However, no precise target had been set by the Government.
By contrast to the new target of reducing the pay bill by €1.2 billion by 2014, the Government secured savings of about €1 billion as a result of the pay cut for public service staff earlier this year.
In its four-year plan, the Government has honoured its stated intention to abide by the Croke Park deal, despite the urging of critics that it should be scrapped.
However, it says the overall national recovery plan has been prepared on the basis that the Croke Park agreement will deliver tangible savings. Furthermore, it warns, “the commitments entered into by the Government under the Croke Park agreement are dependent on savings being delivered”.
The new plan closely adheres to the terms of the Croke Park agreement in dealing with the public service.
Public service pay for serving staff remains untouched (although overall earnings could be hit as a result of State bodies seeking to reduce their exposure to overtime and other special payments).
While the plan provides for a substantial reduction in the numbers on the payroll, this will be achieved on a voluntary basis. There is no provision there for compulsory redundancies.
The introduction of a revised pension scheme for new entrants to the public service was set out in the Croke Park agreement, while the budget last December flagged that there could be changes from next year in pension arrangements for retired public service staff.
While the Croke Park deal allows for a significant reform of pensions for serving personnel – the breaking of the link between pay rises for staff and pension increases for those who are retired – to be considered as part of general talks on pay scheduled for next year, the Government has already stated no actual changes in this area will come into effect during the lifetime of the agreement.
Curiously, apart from this reference to the general discussions on pay and other issues scheduled to take place next spring, the four-year plan is largely silent on another key elements of the Croke Park deal, the possibility of staff recouping some of the money lost as a result of the pay cuts and the pension levy introduced over the last year or so.
The provision for savings generated under the reform programme to be used to reimburse public service staff was a key selling point of the Croke Park deal. However, it remains unclear unclear as to how this arrangement would work in practice.
Overall, the introduction of the 10 per cent pay cut for new staff is one of the few absolutely new initiatives in relation to the public service.
The plan does, however, show how starkly the numbers on the public service payroll are falling.
More than 11,000 personnel have already left and the Government has set a new target of reducing numbers employed further to 294,700 by end of 2014.
The plan again highlights the importance the Government places on the provision to redeploy staff under the reform programme across the public service. The key test of such reform plans may come within weeks in the health service where management will seek to maintain services at a time when more than 3,000 personnel are leaving.
If any gaps that emerge in January are filled as a result of redeployment and services continue to operate smoothly, it will be seen a vindication of Croke Park.
If there is chaos, critics of the deal will argue they were right all along – although in such a scenario unions would undoubtedly blame a lack of contingency planning by management.