Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am broadly supportive of this motion and the sentiments contained therein. I want to address a couple of the points that have been made during the debate. We need to understand clearly that a growing economy does not, in itself, create employment or quality employment. We have seen our counterparts in the United States acknowledging that there is no trickle-down effect. Making decent work part of a growing economy is a something that requires clear policies and mechanisms. It is part of our remit within the political spectrum to champion and promote decent work, decent pay and an economy that benefits everybody. One of the key ways the State can do so is by valuing its public employees and ensuring that those who work for the public in every capacity, both in providing direct public services and for semi-State bodies, are valued and can plan progressive careers. The eight-year freeze that many of them have endured should be recognised. There is now an idea that one can serve the public while planning a career and family for the years ahead, knowing that one is valued and will be meaningfully remunerated for important work.

The Labour Party's proposal is a valuable one. I do not think it is in any sense a replacement for the Labour Court, the Workplace Relations Commission or the joint labour committees, which had fallen off the agenda but which are now, finally, moving back. They need to be strongly supported by this House. As I understand it, the proposal is that structures such as those which prevailed in the 1980s, prior to social partnership, will allow us a space in which to examine issues that move beyond individual disputes. We could thereby move beyond the question of pay and conditions for individual workers and deal with patterns we have identified across society. For example, there is the pattern as we move towards more precarious work, including the undervaluing of younger workers in many sectors.

The proposal is for a valuable body which could examine such matters. As Sinn Féin colleagues said, it should not be regarded as a centralised bargaining space. It is, rather, a space to ensure that we have some vision within society to address not just current crises but potential future ones also. For example, it could ensure that in negotiations across many sectors, future workers and service users would not be disadvantaged. We are not simply talking about workers, we are also discussing the fact that in future people will be able to work in the public service with pride.

Having said that, I have certain concerns about the proposed body. If it is to be further developed, we will need to consider such concerns. I understand that Mr. David Begg has put this idea forward, and that it also exists in Denmark and other countries. Questions arise, however, as to how such a body would be structured. In terms of employee representation, it makes sense to have representative bodies, including unions. Those unions should be in a position to talk about public policy in a wider space, rather than simply negotiating on behalf of their members on an individual or specific dispute. That would be a valuable contribution.

As regards the employer membership, there are questions as to what extent those employers might be public or private and how that representation might be divided up or broken down. That needs to be examined.

What about the community voice? It seems that none of us wants to recreate social partnership, but it is worth remembering that when we did have social partnership there were also environmental and community pillars. I was happy to serve on one of the latter at one point. Community and environmental voices should be considered because we need to ensure that this does not simply become a bargaining point, as was mentioned earlier. The proposal, therefore, requires further development.

Some extraordinarily valuable points are made in the Sinn Féin amendment. I agree with the premise and would like to support such proposals if they are forthcoming from Sinn Féin in future.The question of trade union access to members in the workplace is important. The question of a trade union recognition clause in public procurement is something I favour. I would like to see legislation come through this House dealing with that clause and other clauses within our public procurement contracts worth €6 billion every year, a significant area of spending in which the State could show it values workers and workers' representatives. However, all of us in the House who are passionate about workers' rights and moving forward the workers' rights agenda maybe need to look to how we can work more constructively together because there are many Members in the House who feel strongly on this issue. I would love if we could try to work in a way that we are coming behind each other on motions and amendments in this area.

I would note one other point. Both proposals pointed to the question of subvention. Sinn Féin's proposal was a little more ambitious but Labour's proposal does not preclude that. Labour has looked for an increase in subvention to pre-crisis levels, which I support. I recognise that Sinn Féin has a more ambitious target of moving to a European average and that is something which could be added subsequently.

In terms of subvention and the question of public subsidy, I support all groups which look for the idea of a roadmap towards public subsidy which is appropriate. Ireland is woefully behind the rest of Europe in valuing public transport and investing in it. We invest 28% in public subvention compared with 47% in France and 60% in both Italy and the Netherlands. We are, as one previous speaker mentioned, closer to UK levels. In fact, only the subventions of the UK and Luxembourg are lower than that of Ireland. Ireland is an outlier in terms of the low spend on and investment in public transport. The UK model, which we may be closer to, is a highly fractured and privatised model which would be a serious warning to us in Ireland rather than any kind of model which we must consider if we are to have a credible public transport system.

In terms of subsidies and subvention, we need to look to a different language. This is public investment. When we spend on public transport and subsidise it, we are not propping up some semi-State company. We are investing in the significant value that is given and which is recognised worldwide of a formidable, useful, effective public transport system. It gives extraordinary returns in terms of the environment, participation in society, the individual benefit it gives to all those who are able to work and move in our cities, the life it brings to many areas which would otherwise be isolated, and its meaning for business. It is notable that business complains when the strikes take place. That is because a public transport system is invaluable to a healthy economy. We need to increase massively our investment in this area. We must recognise public transport needs to be part of planning and our vision for the city and the country, and that needs to be a public vision with public accountability.

While I will not address the issue of Bus Éireann, it is part of that public transport vision. Dublin Bus is one of the most inclusive employers in the country. It has led the way in its support for diversity in its employment and it is a tool of inclusion within the city. It is the mechanism which supports all those within the city areas, no matter how isolated and no matter how much the deprivation, to ensure they can be part of the life of the city. We need to recognise that work. We need to ensure those who work with Dublin Bus are recognised, that they can plan their career with pride and they can be assured of appropriate remuneration and recognition in the years ahead. I wish the talks every success and I commend the drivers on having put this issue strongly and appropriately on the public agenda.