Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I note that this Bill has passed through the Dáil without amendment. I also realise that it is a money Bill and it will continue on its journey. While there are measures in the Bill that have already been talked about and praised which are positive and which will lead to a concrete and meaningful, albeit partial, restoration of pay and conditions for many public servants, there are other aspects of the Bill that are of very serious concern. One is the distinction the Bill makes between covered and non-covered parties. That is set out in section 3 and its impact is felt in a number of other sections, including sections 22 and 34 in particular.Effectively, what we see in this Bill are penalties attached to non-covered persons. I recognise most unions have agreed to these proposals. Those who are members of unions, primarily teachers' unions, which have not agreed to these proposals, are being punished by being denied increments, being asked to make a higher superannuation contribution or by having an increment frozen over a period of three years.

Why are they being penalised? We must go back to the step before what this Bill purports to do. The Minister of State spoke about the contribution made and the cost to public servants during the period of the recession and austerity. This Bill proposes to restore these conditions. Instead, however, it is a Bill whereby the Government will only reward those who have agreed it has done a good enough job in restoration. If the Minister is seeking to restore public pay and increments, as well as reversing the measures put in place, that is a decision for him to make. He makes that decision based on the current state of the economy, on Exchequer returns and after weighing up the issues. The Minister must make decisions as to what are appropriate and achievable levels of pay, increments and pension contributions. What is not appropriate, however, is unless one agrees with the decisions the Minister has made and states they are positive, one will be effectively penalised.

We know it is not a simple and technical measure because the Government made it clear that in three years' time it will get around to unfreezing the pay increments for those who did not agree with these proposals. There has been no suggestion that the non-payment of increments is in any way related, for example, to people not performing their duties or not taking industrial action. This is simply because they have not signed up to the public service stability agreement, PSSA. I do not question the integrity of those unions which have signed up to it. All of them have made their choices. However, in the cases of those who chose not to sign up, their rationale in many cases was that they felt there was not enough urgency in addressing the issue of unequal pay for new entrants and the two-tier pay systems. For many, this decision was made on the basis of a principle of solidarity and equality. Now, we will go from having a two-tier pay system in the public service where new entrants and existing staff are paid differently to having another two-tier system imposed on that. For example, two teachers or two public servants, working alongside each other, doing the same work on delivering the same outcomes with the same level of experience, will now be paid differently based on whether their union signed up to the PSSA. We will now have two layers of a two-tier system. How is this positive for public service morale? How does it indicate we understand the sacrifices made and are keen to reverse them?

I will be putting forward amendments in respect of the differential, disadvantageous, unduly punitive and inappropriate treatment of non-covered persons in this Bill. I am concerned there are measures contained in section 3 whereby a person who leaves a union which has not signed up to the PSSA will potentially be rewarded with their pay increments being restored. Again, there is no indication that might happen but there is a concern we are creating a perverse incentive for people to de-unionise. Trade unions have brought us and contributed greatly to social stability in Ireland at times when other countries in Europe would greatly have sought and hoped for such stability. I am concerned at the potentially negative impact of this Bill's measures on trade union membership, which I believe is a public good and is one of the ways we can ensure industrial disputes are managed in an appropriate way, as well as allowing us find constructive ways forward together. Will the Minister measure the impact of the Bill's proposals on trade union membership? I will be putting forward an amendment to ensure positive steps are taken to encourage the restoration of the tax relief for trade union membership to ensure we are actively encouraging it as a core part of our social stability, social cohesion and our shared future.

We are all aware that several of those trade unions which have not signed up to this agreement, and whose members are likely to be penalised as a result, represent the teaching profession. We have a serious concern about ensuring we are able to recruit and retain high-quality teachers for our next generation. Our education system is the seedbed for our future development and growth in our economy which will, in turn, sustain society. What are the Minister's plans to address the concerns of those in the teaching profession, in particular, and to ensure we re-engage with those issues for new entrants in nursing, the Defence Forces and across so other many areas of public life?