Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 November 2016
5. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the Lansdowne Road agreement, dealing with pay restoration for public service workers, is now unsustainable; and his further views on whether it is urgent that the Government sets a date for talks with trade unions representing public sector workers early in 2017 to discuss a new agreement to replace the Lansdowne Road agreement. [36599/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to ask the Minister his views on whether the Lansdowne Road agreement, dealing with pay restoration for public service workers, is now unsustainable, and his further views on whether it is urgent that the Government sets a date for talks with trade unions representing public sector workers early in 2017 to discuss a new agreement to replace the Lansdowne Road agreement.
The Government strongly supports the Lansdowne Road agreement, LRA, as the centrepiece of public pay policy, noting that the Labour Court's recommendation was explicitly made within that framework. However, the wider implications of the recommendation in regard to the continued operation of the Lansdowne Road agreement as it applies to all public servants across the public service are under careful consideration and assessment by Government. In that regard, I met with ICTU representatives on 7 November last to get an early input to those considerations by Government from the public services committee of ICTU in terms of the views of the constituent unions.
Senior officials within my Department also met with the public services committee of ICTU where both sides reiterated their commitment to a continued collective approach. It was also agreed that those issues arising in regard to the terms of the Lansdowne Road agreement could be more appropriately dealt with by the parties under the relevant provisions of the Lansdowne Road agreement. In this regard both parties agreed to remain in ongoing contact over the coming weeks on this matter.
The Government will continue to engage as necessary through public service management with the public services committee of ICTU and other representative bodies, under the oversight and governance arrangements provided within the Lansdowne Road agreement. The provisions of the LRA provide a mechanism to address issues that arise in relation to the agreement. It is incumbent on the parties to the agreement to utilise the mechanisms to address issues that arise in relation to that agreement.
The Minister made the point earlier that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made it very clear that there are two points it wants to deal with. The first is the acceleration of negotiations on pay restoration. That comes on foot of the Labour Court award to the Garda. Nearly everybody now takes the view, although the Government is not saying it, that the Lansdowne Road agreement is unsustainable. It will simply not hold at a time when public sector workers see another group of workers gain a pay increase following a Labour Court recommendation. The former group of workers has gone through the same austerity and the same situation and now they find themselves falling behind another group of workers. That is not acceptable. I do not think those workers will accept it because it is not on. Should the Government now accept the inevitable and set the date for proper talks with the public sector unions? The talks at the moment appear to be tentative. Does the Minister agree that along with a shorter timetable for full pay restoration for workers earning less than €65,000 a year, the question of equal pay, which has already been raised, should be dealt with as an urgent and immediate issue?
I have already outlined what the timeframe is for discussions on the future of public pay in this country, in response to questions from Deputy Dara Calleary and others. I also spoke about what will happen in the aftermath of the Lansdowne Road agreement, what a successor agreement could look like, and the timings and processes we need to do this.
The simple challenge we face is affordability. The saving to the State of, for example, all of the FEMPI legislation earnings that are currently not available to public and civil servants is €1.4 billion every year. The only way in which we can make progress on these matters is by doing so in a way that is affordable to everybody. Deputy Joan Collins has raised, as did Deputy John Brady earlier, the issue of pay for new entrants. We have made progress on the issue but we must do so in tandem with making progress on other matters, for example, the issues the Deputy raises in the House every week. That is what the Government is seeking to do.
The Minister talked about affordability. I am taking about people who are members of unions who work in hospitals, schools, ambulance services and other public services. The issue of affordability for them relates to how they can continue to pay their way in society. Many of them have suffered huge cuts to their wages and household members have lost jobs. In spite of that they are still paying the same mortgage they were paying eight years ago. Rents are increasing, as are transport costs. It is becoming very difficult for people to live and some even face evictions from their homes. How can one ask those workers to accept the argument on affordability when they see bank CEOs getting increases and Deputies getting a €5,000 increase in their wages? There is no fairness in that and those workers will not accept it. SIPTU has spoken of its plans to ballot 60,000 public sector members in the new year on the situation. The Government will have to take the bull by the horns and enter negotiations in order to move things on.
I am interested to hear what the Deputy's attitude was to the signing of the Lansdowne Road agreement. Did she welcome it?
Deputy Collins is now criticising the Government because she perceives that an agreement she did not welcome at the time is no longer in action. The Deputy cannot have her cake and eat it on this matter.
The agreement cannot be in action.
The Minister should be allowed to reply without interruption.
This is an agreement that she criticised at the time and now that it is her view that it is no longer in place - a view with which I completely disagree given, for example, that the Labour Court recommendation was made inside the framework of the Lansdowne Road agreement - she cannot then criticise the Government for an agreement that she herself is against. That is the challenge Deputy Joan Collins and her colleagues face, who are raising this issue at the moment.
In recent weeks and months Deputy Joan Collins called for the abolition of water charges and an end to the private collection of waste and for the State to play a larger role in that regard. She called for an increase in the public transport subvention in light of existing industrial relations difficulties. The list goes on. She is calling for all of those things to happen but the question is how we do all of that and how we can pay for it. As I said to Deputy John Brady earlier, I am fully aware of the challenges people face, whom I am privileged to represent. I am as aware of the situation as Deputy Joan Collins. She does not have a monopoly on making that point. However, it falls to me and the Government to try to find a way of making progress in these matters in a way that is affordable and fair for everybody.
The Minister made points about the North. I am not a member of Sinn Féin but what is happening in Ireland and throughout Europe is a consequence of the neoliberal agenda governments across Europe have recently followed.
We are going to see a winter of discontent next year on the part of workers. A group of workers has been given an award through the Labour Court, while other workers are told to sit back and wait when they cannot afford to wait and are finding it difficult to survive. The Minister challenged me about the Lansdowne Road agreement. There are plenty of things one can oppose. I would have voted against the Lansdowne Road agreement if I was in the public service. If I was a worker now, I would not accept that a group of workers gets an award better than that offered to me, so I would want to get out of the agreement. Two unions did not enter the Lansdowne Road agreement. We could have a debate about ideology or where we come from in respect of international global capitalism and the protection of that force by certain Governments. At the end of the day, workers are suffering from it.
I reiterate that I am absolutely aware of the challenges people face in their daily lives. I know the role that wage growth and increases in wages can play in alleviating that burden. I want to see this happen in the economy and society but in a way that is affordable and sustainable for everybody. I appreciate the Deputy's candour about the Lansdowne Road agreement. At least she is clear about her inconsistency. She is saying she would have voted against the Lansdowne Road agreement but she is now making the case, with which I disagree completely, that the very agreement she would have voted against is in difficulty and that she believes this to be a bad thing.
I never raised the issue of Northern Ireland with the Deputy, although I did raise it with Deputy John Brady earlier. I am not getting into a debate about the benefits or otherwise of neoliberalism. I am not a neoliberal. I am against the kind of policies that have caused such difficulty in other parts of the world. I am in favour of putting together policies that are affordable to make sure we do not go back into the cycle of wage increases tomorrow we find we cannot afford the day after that end up being wage cuts that cause chaos for families. I do not want to see that happen. I believe the Lansdowne Road agreement and my acknowledgement of the consequences of the Labour Court recommendation for public service workers make up the framework within which we will address this.
