John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of brief questions on which I seek clarity. Deputy McGrath asked a number of them for me so I will not repeat those. I wish to begin by welcoming the witnesses, as my colleagues have done, and thanking them for their pretty passionate and very well-articulated presentations. I acknowledge the more than significant role of trades unions in the history of the State in securing groundbreaking rights for men and women, workers generally, over the past 70 or 80 years, some of which have been eroded slightly in the past two decades. I am hugely sympathetic towards the witnesses from that perspective and hugely sympathetic to the rights of unions to exist, thrive, encourage membership and provide the best services backup to those members. I myself was a member of a public service teaching union for a number of years. However, I am here as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, and our job is to scrutinise the proposals the witnesses are making and to interrogate them with a small "i".

My first question concerns the Department's report and its review into the abolition and the analysis of the application of the relief. A professional membership fee has a very clear benefit. I was a self-employed professional and - this point is made in the Department's review - I could not practice without paying such a membership fee. I could not practice without accruing the continuous professional development requirements that allowed me to gain accreditation, for which the fee had to be paid. No one in any of the trades unions the witnesses represent cannot practice their profession without being a member of the trades union. That is the difference, and I would like the witnesses' response to that.

The second point in the Department's review concerns the regulatory function of accreditation bodies. I take Mr. O'Connor's point that IBEC is not a regulatory body but a professional body. However, in respect of accountants, professional solicitors and the range of self-employed people who pay fees, there is a regulatory function in professional bodies, but there is no regulatory function in a trades union. I ask the witnesses to respond to this point.

The review also points out the principal advantage that accrues to a member of a trades union, namely, representation. Regarding the additional ongoing training services that are provided, one could argue that is not the function of a trade union. The function of a trade union is basically to represent its members. Again, I ask the witnesses to respond to this point.

I have two final questions. I will use primary school teachers and members of the INTO as an example. The witnesses are seeking that a member of the INTO gets tax relief on his or her annual membership fee. A primary school teacher or post-primary school teacher must become a member of the Teaching Council once he or she becomes qualified. That is a professional body, and teachers are actually obliged to become members of the Teaching Council. Is tax relief available on those fees? If not, can the witnesses see the other doors they are potentially opening up?

Finally, Mr. Cody mentioned retired members. Again, I ask this as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. I am just seeking information. What justification would there be for tax relief for retired members of trades unions on their membership fees? Are the membership fees of retired members reduced?

There are four or five questions on which the witnesses could perhaps provide clarity.