James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

At the outset, to begin on a positive note, I welcome the beginning of the unwinding of the FEMPI legislation. My party has always had this as a goal, as has been outlined by Deputies Calleary and Cahill. That aspect, at least, is to be welcomed. It is a long time coming and, as Deputy Cahill mentioned, our gardaí, teachers, nurses and other public servants are extremely well-deserving of these measures. However, it is a bit like the curate's egg. It is spoiled in parts, which may spoil it for everybody. We hope not. As Deputy Calleary said, we will see on Committee Stage.

There are many sections to the Bill. It is a complex Bill, as the Minister suggested. There is one section with which I have difficulty and with which the teaching unions have difficulty as has been mentioned already. We know how difficult it has been for the unions and public servants affected to carry this cross for the last several years. It is welcome that we are beginning to progress the unwinding of the legislation. I wish to signal a series of concerns, particularly on the dichotomy created within the Bill between the covered public servants and those not covered. The introduction of that definition at all, but particularly into primary legislation, does not sit well with me and does not sit well with industrial relations custom and practice.

We are well aware of the difficulties which have been experienced as a result of the lack of pay equality in the teaching unions in particular. There are newly qualified teachers who entered the profession months after colleagues who graduated the year before. In some cases there is a gap of €26,000 in terms of pay and benefits arising from the mere fact of some having a graduation date a few months later than those of their colleagues. Teachers are doing the same work in the schools and the staff room, in many cases they are teaching in the same classrooms, they are walking up and down the same corridors and they are sitting at lunch together and have to look one another in the eye.

I know that senior colleagues and those who qualified before the change feel just as awful at the gap of up to €26,000 between them and their colleagues, despite doing the same work. It is a very uncomfortable situation and it is very unfair. It must be to the credit of the teaching profession that it has hung its hat on the issue of seeking pay equality and trying to work towards it. That is the principal reason the teaching unions have not been comfortable with the previous agreements and why they did not enter into them.

The principal difficulty with this legislation as I see it is that it does not appear even to create a pathway to pay equality. I welcome the Minister's comments on what path forward can be found. I hope one can be found. That aspiration does not even appear to be contained in the legislation. If there is a way to sew such a pathway into it, perhaps through amendments on Committee Stage, it may be a way to proceed. At face value, however, I do not see that in the legislation.

There are again difficulties in respect of traditional custom and practice, trade union rights and industrial relations machinery. If one looks at section 21, there is what appears to be a very draconian measure. Not only does it prohibit, or appear to prohibit, members of those unions who will not enter an agreement from receiving the benefits of the measures in this legislation, but if I interpret it correctly, and this is the key point, it appears to affect even those unions which have not assented to agreement even if they have not engaged in industrial action. If they were to vocalise their dissent or express their unhappiness with the agreement, even if they were to take no industrial action or steps along those lines, their members will be excluded from the benefits because, if I am reading it correctly, they will be non-covered public servants. The union they belong to will be in that category.

It is a step too far to disbar a member of a union from benefitting. It appears that many issues such as the right to collective action, the right to take collective bargaining and freedom of association arise. I would welcome any clarification if I and the teaching unions are wrong in that interpretation. Certainly as it stands, section 21 appears to have that interpretation. Even were there an argument for such a measure, as Deputy Calleary has already said, primary legislation is not the place for it. The measures appear to be too draconian for a simple lack of assent, especially when it is not followed by industrial action.

Those are my concerns on the Bill. There is much to be welcomed, primarily the unpicking of the FEMPI legislation and the progress for many public servants, which is long-deserved and long-awaited. There are other concerns which centre on section 21 and on the definition of non-covered public servants. I await clarification on whether those concerns can be addressed and overcome. Perhaps there is an issue of interpretation. If that can be clarified in the House it would be very welcome. As it stands, they are concerns.

See this speech in context