Vol. 1068 No. 3
79. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to provide some details on the work his accelerating infrastructure task force will be undertaking; what we can expect by way of the reports it will produce; and the assurances in place that the recommendations it makes will be acted upon. [27880/25]
After those remarks, I must state that it is important the record has been corrected. I would hope that all Members carry our history with them when they make contributions and understand that there are families who can be impacted. It is important for us all to realise the importance of our words.
My question relates to the accelerating infrastructure task force. What can we expect by way of the reports it will produce and how can we be assured that the recommendations it makes will be acted upon?
I launched the new accelerating infrastructure task force on Friday 16 May. At the task force's first meeting, the terms of reference were agreed and there was a discussion of the work plan of the Department's newly established infrastructure division over the coming months.
Primarily, the role of the task force is to provide its members' expertise and guidance to assist my Department's work programme of identifying and addressing barriers to the delivery of infrastructure in order to accelerate the development of critical infrastructure. This work programme focuses on the energy, transport and water sectors. This focus has been adopted because all three of these elements are required to underpin the development of all economic and social infrastructure, whether in healthcare, housing or childcare, and to support our economy's competitiveness.
As noted, the terms of reference for the task force have been established and agreed with the members. These specifically set out that the role of the task force is to: provide strategic guidance and expert input to policy proposals to speed up infrastructure delivery; provide guidance and advice to officials to ensure that barriers to infrastructure delivery are identified accurately and represent the most significant barriers that are impeding timely and effective delivery; provide guidance and advice on the development of a small number of high-impact reform actions that are robust, achievable and timebound that will be rigorously focused on addressing the challenges identified - these actions will be brought to Government for approval; and oversee the subsequent implementation of these reform actions, supported by the Department’s infrastructure division and the Departments and agencies responsible for implementation.
There are 12 members of the task force. Six are independent experts experienced in infrastructure delivery and the other six are ex-officio members taken from commercial semi-State entities at the front line of infrastructure development and the local government sector. I will chair meetings of the task force. I anticipate that it will meet monthly.
The first task my Department is progressing, and, hence, the first task the task force will oversee, is a systematic assessment of the barriers impeding the development of critical infrastructure. This task will be undertaken through a combination of research work, direct stakeholder engagement and a process of public engagement which will be launched shortly. I expect to bring a report on these barriers to Government in July, incorporating feedback from the task force. Thereafter, the focus will be on identifying actions that can overcome these barriers, seeking Government approval of these actions and ensuring they are implemented.
The reason I asked this question is because in recent years various different task forces and expert groups have been set up. We have the construction sector group, for example. I was quite puzzled as to why this new group had to be set up as opposed to its members just being added to the construction sector group. As we know, that expert group was set up to help tackle the housing crisis. I read some of its reports - they were excellent - but I never really saw how its recommendations were translated into Government policy. I am a bit worried that the new task force will go the same way. In other words, that there will be some good reports, committee appearances and fanfare but little follow-through. Will the Minister provide specifics as to how any recommendations will carry over into Government policy or legislation? As he knows, there are no serviced sites in south Conamara. This is an incredibly important issue we need to tackle. I want to see actual progress resulting from these reports.
The construction sector group has a distinct and separate mandate. It continues to do excellent work. We have identified, and the Deputy will have seen this in her broad engagement with people in south Conamara or, indeed, with stakeholders across the economy, that there are many barriers impeding delivery. The task force’s central mandate is to have a short period to identify these barriers, develop significant reforms to cut through some of the processes involved and the barriers to delivery and ensure that we oversee the implementation. That is responding to the genuine concerns around the level and pace of delivery. That has not been the central focus of the construction sector group, which, as stated, has a distinct and separate mandate. The new task force is seeking to accelerate delivery of the basic infrastructure that is lacking in parts of our country. It is looking at impediments, at why projects are taking too long in terms of the design and concept phases and at how project lifecycles can be shortened in order to drive delivery. That will improve the basic infrastructure in the Deputy’s constituency and many other parts of the country.
I hope this works, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I am worried that the task force will become a place where things are said and reports are written, but that nothing will come from this. Of course, it is important to listen to expert recommendations and bring them together. Some incredibly good reports have been published. In that context, we could fill the House with excellent reports. However, these reports are never actioned. That is the issue. I want to ensure that the task force does not become some kind of a holding excuse and that it will actually bring forward recommendations that will mean we can tackle the relevant issues.
The Minister said he is going to bring some of the recommendations forward in the summer. In six months' time, we will have a good idea of what is happening in terms of a progress update. While the Minister has made this task force a signature initiative, we need to make sure something is done in respect of the recommendations it puts forward. Other groups have made recommendations and either nothing came of them or the Government did not listen. We need to ensure that, as in the case of Conamara, there will be serviced sites and whatever else is needed,
I do not disagree with much of what the Deputy said. There are often too many reports which contain endless recommendations. We have tried to change our approach to how this process is working. It is how we can identify high-impact reforms that are implementable and timebound that will make an objective difference. That has been the central mandate of the task force. That is why there will be a report by the summer. The outworking of it, and the core remit of the task force, is to oversee, with me chairing it, the implementation of this across government. That is the mandate it has been given.
Having hundreds of recommendations in hundreds of pages of a particular report means that the specific actions are lost. That is why we are taking a focused approach to how we develop the work programme of both the infrastructure task force and the infrastructure division. The task force is also tasked with examining international best practice in the context of how we can measure Ireland against that. We know we have a significant infrastructure deficit. Some of that is in our delivery systems and in the processes that have developed over many years. All of that will fit within the recommendations that will come by the summer. It is about trying to move the dial on infrastructure delivery.
80. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform the number of staff in his Department's new infrastructure division; the respective grades and areas of responsibility of staff; and if he will confirm the division's key responsibilities and deliverables for 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28801/25]
Will the Minister elaborate on the staffing composition of the new infrastructure division within his Department and on what he views as the key responsibilities and deliverables for the division in 2025? This is a key objective of the Minister and is contained in the programme for Government. Will he inform the House as to what the priorities are for the rest of this year?
The programme for Government significantly expanded my Department’s work on infrastructure and included the establishment of a new infrastructure division. The division's specific responsibilities and deliverables are being progressed as part of the Department's forthcoming statement of strategy, which will go to Government in advance of the summer.
To be of assistance to the Deputy, the key Government commitments that the infrastructure division will be responsible for delivering in the short term are: an early review of the national development plan by July; expanding the Department’s infrastructure expertise to assist delivery through the redeployment of sectoral experts to the Department; the establishment and provision of support to the newly established accelerating infrastructure task force; and preparing a report to Government to identify the barriers to delivery and subsequent actions in order to accelerate the completion of infrastructure across our economy. This report will be prepared on the basis of broad stakeholder engagement, public engagement and a review of international best practice in order to construct a detailed evidential assessment for subsequent action.
This infrastructure delivery work is in addition to the infrastructure division’s ongoing work across its national investment office functions, construction procurement and overseeing certain departmental Votes. The establishment of the division has seen a significant increase in its constituent units' staffing levels. It is led by a deputy Secretary General and comprises an assistant secretary and five units, each of which is led by a principal officer.
On the current breakdown of grades, including vacancies up to an including principal officer, there are five principal officers, 20 assistant principal officers, 18 administrative officers, four higher executive officers, two executive officers and six clerical officers. In addition, five individuals with key sectoral expertise in the delivery of strategic infrastructure and the planning process have been deployed to support the work of division from EirGrid, ESB Networks, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, Uisce Éireann and An Bord Pleanála. Staff from the Department's communications unit are being made available to support the public engagement of the division in delivering its key outputs. This brings the current total headcount for the infrastructure division to 62.
That is not an insignificant number of staff. Can the Minister confirm that those from State agencies who will be working in the division will continue to be paid by their parent agencies? I assume that will be the case.
The Minister was quoted in The Irish Times yesterday as saying that the acid test will be delivery.
I assume the action plan on infrastructure delivery the Minister referred to will be published side by side with the review of the national development plan in July. That would make a lot of sense. In that action plan and the national development plan, will he commit to ensuring there are deadlines and milestones around key projects? That will be the way in which he and his Government colleagues will be held to account on actual delivery. Will he also confirm what countries he has looked at for best practice on delivering key infrastructure projects when considering setting up this Department? Are there examples we can look to for inspiration?
I make the point that it is all too slow and that is the basis of the reform process happening in parallel with the work of the review of the national development plan. That is why additionality by itself will not move the dial and why the report on the barriers to infrastructure delivery will be finalised in July. That will work in parallel with the updated review of the national development plan, whether they are published on the same day or not is something we have to sequence. However, the plan is to have both prepared to set out the issues in the area of reforms. As I have said, the acid test will be how we forensically examine the project life cycle. There are countless examples that everyone in this House is aware of, where it is simply taking too long. We are systematically examining all aspects of the project life cycle to try to truncate timelines and do that on a systematic basis to accelerate delivery. As part of the international metric, we are looking at best practice in terms of the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD. We are also interested in looking at common law jurisdictions where there is a lot of commonality on infrastructure delivery, like New Zealand, Australia and the UK. What is also really interesting are the different timelines that exist in many US states that have taken different approaches to infrastructure delivery, many of which are confined by constraints and cannot get things done, and others which have unlocked delivery. Providing that international comparison with the evidence base from published research will help complement the systematic exercise happening domestically around the project life cycle.
Will the Minister consider finding a way to include people with international experience from outside this jurisdiction in the division? I do not know the identities of the people involved and, in some ways, it is none of my business. I wish them well, because if they do a good job our country succeeds, so we should give this initiative a fair wind. However, a lot of the people involved in the infrastructure division and task force will themselves have considerable experience with delayed projects. I am not apportioning blame here, but they may have been responsible in their own positions for projects we would associate with significant delays. Will the Minister put on the record of the House an example of a project that has been delayed in recent years, and that has frustrated all of us, which he thinks would not have been delayed in the way it was if a division like this and the task force he referred to earlier had been in place? What particular project is his priority over the next few years? He said the acid test will be deliverables. What is he going to deliver? Will he name a project?
There are countless projects in the national development plan that are caught in endless delays. This is not about the work I am doing at the centre of Government. It is not about one particular project or pet project that the Deputy or anyone else might have. It is about how we change the life cycle of projects universally, so we accelerate for priorities set out in the national development plan. We are taking the international experience as a key evidence base for how we bring about the reforms that need to be stood up. Whether in housing, energy, transport, or water infrastructure, too many projects are in endless processes where the public have seen indicative allocations many years ago and they have still not seen delivery. It is to give confidence and momentum and show there is a pipeline to the construction sector that can be commenced. This systematic exercise is required. Of course, there are people and different State agencies, bodies or Departments that have been involved in parts of the delays contributing to this. That is why we have a blank canvas in how we change that for the better. That is the measurement and metric of the outworking of the reforms that will advance.
81. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform his plans to reform the OPW following the latest report from an organisation (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27881/25]
This relates to the latest Deloitte report into the OPW. Will the Minister of State outline how he plans to reform the organisation and what his future steps will be in that regard? There was huge outcry when people saw the bike shelter and the cost of it at €336,000. You would get an ambulance for that price on Inisheer, which does not have an ambulance.
The publication of the internal audit report by the OPW, following the review of projects costing €500,000 and under is welcome. It follows a commitment to learn from the bike shelter project and presents the internal audit findings, control recommendations and management response. The OPW has accepted and is actively implementing all the recommendations within the report. The internal audit report enables us to focus on continuing to strengthen ways of working across the OPW. The OPW takes a structured approach to delivering value for money across both the capital and current expenditure programmes, with the capital expenditure programme grounded in principles and requirements of infrastructure guidelines and adherence with the capital works management framework. The capital works management framework aims to deliver cost certainty, better value for money, and more efficient project delivery. This is achieved through standardised contracts, guidance notes and a structured approach to project management. The OPW follows this policy instrument to deliver a compliant tender process and construction projects, ensuring that projects achieve value for money, are delivered in an efficient manner and meet the needs of the Government and our clients across the system. In addition, guidance on capital works projects with an estimated value of less than €500,000 has been developed. This new guidance covers approval and oversight for smaller capital works projects and will further strengthen our project oversight, regardless of project size.
There are a number of reasons it is important to raise this. We have been talking about reports that were not acted upon, and I hope it will not be the same in this case. Although Deloitte's report is the latest one, it is not the first report on the OPW. We had damning report in 2014. That was an external London-based firm. Following that, there was a "Prime Time" special, PAC hearings and other examples of failure to get value for money. In 2022 we had another review; this time it was an internal Government study into how much money was spent on the portfolio. It looked at five buildings to compare rental costs with either purchasing or constructing an equivalent building. In all cases looked at, it was found to be much cheaper to build or to buy. In other words, they keep making wrong decisions when it comes to getting value for money. We are obviously talking here about the bike shelter. I see what the Minister of State says about guidance for projects under €500,000. Does he have full confidence this will be acted upon and that exactly how the OPW spends money will be looked at?
Following the OPW chairman's report on the bike shelter and his appearance before the Oireachtas committee, he was frank in acknowledging the overall cost of delivering the covered bike shelter at Leinster House was unacceptable in the wider context of value for money and value for the taxpayer. Following his commitment to learn from the bike shelter project, the chairman wanted independent assurance on the practice relating to capital projects under €500,000. In addition, he widened the scope of external review to include the wider internal audit process within the OPW with a view to making improvements. I welcome the published report, which presents internal audit findings, control recommendations and management response. The audit report makes a number of recommendations about control measures that will enhance capital expenditure practice for these projects. The OPW has internally accepted the implementation of the recommendations in the report. The new guidance approval and oversight of smaller capital projects is now being implemented across the OPW. The management board will review and drive the implementation of the internal audit recommendation to ensure we continue to improve our approach. The commitment to robust governance of the internal audit function within the OPW has been further strengthened by the appointment of an additional member of its team and a head of internal audit principal officer.
My question is on what actual reform we will see taking place in the OPW. I am sure the Minister of State is against these overspends and I take it he was not in office at the time but it has continued over a number of years and there have been reports over a number of years. What reform will take place in the OPW? Does the Minister of State have confidence it can properly manage its property? Is its property management function working? Does the Minister of State have confidence in it? What exactly will change organisationally? We hear about the bike shelter and it causes huge public anger, understandably, but often we only get this information because somebody like Ken Foxe puts in an FOI request and successfully gets the FOI request returned. We need to look at it in its entirety. How could we change what is happening in the OPW?
I have 100% full confidence in myself as Minister of State and in the OPW. It is a 35-page report with 18 recommendations. Some people criticised the delay regarding the report. That was because I, as Minister of State, wanted to make sure we implemented all the recommendations in the report. We put our hands up. There were mistakes made. We have to improve and we are improving. Based on the final report, I will make sure those recommendations are insisted on and gone through. The OPW and I will work together to ensure better value for money for the taxpayers and people of this country.
82. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform his views on the increased level of privatisation and outsourcing in the provision of public services, its effect on cost overruns and outcomes for citizens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28802/25]
What controls and monitoring are in place for the runaway train of public money being used to outsource and privatise public services?
My Department works to serve the country, its people and the Government by delivering well-managed and well-targeted public spending, delivered through modernised, effective and accountable public services.
The process around outsourcing set out in the public service pay agreement states that where outsourcing is being considered in respect of an existing service, both official and staff sides will consult on the development of a service plan which evaluates and compares the in-house service and the outsourcing option. The public service pay agreement 2024-2026 reaffirms the commitment to the above and states that where a dispute arises through the application of this process, parties will seek to resolve it through direct dialogue. Where this fails to resolve the dispute, parties will use the dispute resolution mechanism set out in chapter 5 of the agreement. Accordingly, where a dispute arises, it will be subject to a six-week period of initial bilateral engagement at local level between the parties. Where agreement cannot be reached, the dispute will be referred to the WRC or, if necessary, the Labour Court. Where a conciliation or arbitration scheme applies, the issue will be referred within six weeks to the conciliation machinery under the scheme and, if unresolved, to the arbitration board. The Labour Court or arbitration mechanism is the final stage in the dispute resolution service.
My Department has been responsible for a number of recent reform initiatives, including the Better Public Services strategy, which aims to deliver inclusive, high-quality and integrated public service provision. Better Public Services is aligned with the ten-year strategy for the Civil Service, Civil Service Renewal 2030, which is built on three core themes: digital first and embedding innovation; workforce, workplace and organisation of the future; and evidence-informed policy and services. It is also aligned with Connecting Government 2030: A Digital and ICT Strategy for Ireland’s public service.
There are no functions, roles or services within my Department that were outsourced to the private sector which were previously carried out by civil servants.
To speak more generally on the scale of recruitment of public servants, over the past five years we have seen an extensive and positive expansion in the numbers of public servants across many areas of remit, and rightly so. If there are any changes, there is a process under the public pay agreement to manage them.
I thank the Minister for the answer, which was really about the industrial relations processes around agreements and outsourcing. I am asking what financial controls and monitoring are in place. There is a myriad of examples of what should be public services being outsourced with detrimental outcomes for the users. We saw this week the National Treatment Purchase Fund has created perverse incentives. There are hundreds of examples of these. Emergency care for vulnerable teenagers is one. There are private companies getting contracts of between €10,000 and €15,000 per week to provide one placement with staff that are not trained in accommodation where there is no cutlery in the kitchens, where the bedsheets are not cleaned and where the teenager is brought to the Centra every evening to buy a chicken roll for dinner. Companies are making huge money from this service that should be provided by the State. Emergency measures are put in place and, years later, are still in place. What controls are there are on this misuse of public money which should be providing high-quality services that people need?
All public bodies are obliged to treat public funds with care and to ensure the best value for money is obtained wherever public money is spent or invested. It is the responsibility of the relevant Department to ensure procedures are in place for compliance with all required procedures within the Department or office or the bodies under its aegis. It is a matter for each Accounting Officer with the associated agencies to ensure compliance with the Public Spending Code, public financial procedures and relevant circulars and to ensure value for money and appropriate consideration of alternative options. They also need to take account of the requirement 8.25 of the 2016 code of practice for the governance of State bodies, which requires an annual report on adherence to the relevant procedures and the Public Spending Code.
On the leasing of services generally through service-level agreements and State provision of services, the issue of external service delivery was covered in Building Momentum, the public service agreement. In that agreement, the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the appropriate use of direct labour, where consistent with efficient and effective public service delivery. The provisions of recent public service agreements relating to external service delivery will continue to apply.
I cannot speak to the specific examples the Deputy referenced except to say the trend of public service recruitment in the past five years has been significant across many front-line areas of public services and we are committed to continuing to drive increased provision of public services in how we frame the budgets in the future.
As Minister with overall responsibility for public expenditure and reform, does the Minister see a role for himself in this? This is happening across Departments. I will provide another example, namely, homeless emergency accommodation by private providers. Some are making huge profits and in some instances are providing emergency accommodation where there are bloodstains on the sheets and where people who stay there report being assaulted or robbed by staff who are not properly trained. We see it in social care and home care for elderly people. It has been outsourced and privatised. People are paid poorly and not getting proper conditions. That then affects the older person or person getting the service. It is not just an industrial relations issue, although that is important. There has been in recent years more and more outsourcing of key services that should be provided directly with good value for money and good quality. This is happening across multiple Departments. Is there anything the Minister can do?
Some of the examples the Deputy references are shocking. Where there is maltreatment or misuse of public funds, it should be reported to the Accounting Officer, Department and line Minister involved. There are often service-level agreements that underpin the money put forward for the service to be provided. If it is not being provided or the public good is being undermined or not followed through in the context of the service-level agreement, that should be reported and there should be full accountability through the relevant Department or Accounting Officer. The objective in the development of many services is good public services, led by increased recruitment across the public sector. There are instances where a particular Department or agency, because of an issue that might arise, requires a service-level agreement to be stood up but that should be complied with. The dignity and protection of vulnerable people is essential within that. Any instances of people not being treated appropriately should be reported and the service-level agreement adhered to in full in the context of what was meant to be provided to the individuals involved.
83. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform if he will examine providing pay incentives to public sector workers where there are acute recruitment and retention issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28899/25]
What incentives will the Minister provide for public sector workers because of the acute shortages we are seeing? Some 382 roles in the national children's hospital are unfilled. There are 700 vacancies for psychiatric nurses. There are 529 unfilled posts throughout the children's disability network teams, CDNTs. Some 500 new social workers are required per year. Some 75% of secondary schools are unable to fill teaching posts. There are 9,000 unqualified individuals in our schools. Need I go on? This is having a massive impact throughout society. Unless the Government admits there is a real problem and institutes a city allowance or other allowances to attract workers, we are in for a continuation of the impact of this crisis.
I thank the Deputy. As she is aware, a broad range of factors influence staff recruitment and retention. As a result of Ireland's significant economic growth, unemployment is low and labour market conditions remain tight. Labour and skills shortages are presenting recruitment and retention challenges for employers across the labour market, including the civil and public service, as the Deputy mentioned. Despite this, staff numbers in the public sector have continued to grow significantly. Between 2015 and quarter 1 of 2025, which is the most recent data available to my Department, overall estimated public service numbers in full-time equivalent terms increased by over 36% from 302,000 to over 411,000.
The public service is a good employer and continues to offer competitive pay and other terms and conditions to attract and retain staff, including flexible working arrangements, opportunities for continuous professional development, pension provision and secure employment. In the case of recruitment policy in the Civil Service, for which I have policy responsibility, my Department works closely with the Public Appointments Service and other Departments to achieve the objectives set out by the 2024 plan for Civil Service renewal and to ensure that the State remains an employer of choice.
The Deputy referenced remuneration. As she is aware, pay in the public service has been governed by a system of collective agreements since the negotiation of the Croke Park agreement in 2010. These agreements have enabled the Government to increase pay for our public servants in a fair, sustainable and affordable way. The current agreement runs for two and a half years from 2024 to mid-2026 and the total cost amounts to €3.6 billion. The agreement provides for increases of 10.25% over a two-and-a-half-year period. This is made up of general round increases totalling 9.25%, as well as a provision for a local bargaining mechanism equivalent to 1% of the basic pay cost.
Under the current agreement to date, public servants have benefited from pay increases totalling 6.25%. There is one further general round of 1% for all public servants due on 1 August. This will be followed by two further general round increases in 2026, with an increase of 1% in February 2026 and an increase of 1% in June 2026.
The agreement also contains a local bargaining provision, which allows management-----
I thank the Minister.
I will follow up in the next round.
In our mutual constituency, the resounding message at the doors is that young Castleknock is in Australia. That was said to me. I was told I would not meet anyone over the age of 23 in the area.
The Mayor of London estimates that a worker needs £9,600 extra to live in inner London. There is a London weighting allowance, for example, for the NHS, whereby a worker in inner London is paid 20%, or up to £8,172, more. An allowance of 15% is available to those in outer London to attract NHS staff.
The teacher shortage is acute in Dublin and all cities and urban areas, as it is everywhere in the country. How can we expect teachers to live in Dublin when the average rent is €2,377? How can we expect people to do that? They are going to emigrate and we will see a continuation of the situation. The impact on disadvantaged schools and students with special needs will be severe.
As I was going to say before I had to conclude, there is a local bargaining provision that allows management and unions to negotiate changes to pay and terms and conditions up to a maximum of 3% of pay costs for the relevant grade. The first instalment under this provision, equivalent to 1% of pay costs, is due to be implemented from 1 September 2025 and negotiations are commencing at local level across the public service.
This agreement, like its predecessor, is weighted towards lower paid public servants. Over the lifetime of the agreement, the lowest paid public servants will see cumulative benefits of up to 17.3%, inclusive of the local bargaining provision, compared with the standard benefits of 10.25%.
The Deputy asked about housing. This is why the State's overall investment in housing as part of the national development plan is critical. Last year during the budgetary process, we advanced the expansion of the renter's tax credit to respond to the relative price of rent in the economy. That will be a continued focus for the Government in the national development plan and through the budgetary process.
In other words, the Government is not going to do anything. That is the reality. It is going to stick by these collective agreements that do not serve all groups of workers. I will give the examples of the Tories, who I would not be singing the praises of at any time. Due to the teaching crisis in the UK, a scheme was introduced to make bursaries available. To teach chemistry, for example, a prospective teacher will get a scholarship of £31,000 and a bursary of £29,000, which is much higher than the average industrial wage. Postgraduate bursaries are being introduced. Irish people are going over to the UK to do their teacher training because they will be paid the average industrial wage. They will then stay in the system in the UK for a period. Australia has hard-to-fill vacancies and introduced scholarships in the amount of 5,000 Australian dollars. A non-UK student who is coming to the country to teach languages, physics, science or whatever else will get a bursary. Our Government is doing nothing. We need a city allowance for public sector workers. We need special education allowances. We need to consider how we will lift the hardship from public sector workers. Otherwise, they will continue to fly to Australia and other places all around the globe and our crisis will continue.
Many public servants working here are involved in the bargaining process, which the trade unions were centrally involved in for the current public pay agreement. That collective pay agreement has brought industrial peace to our country relative to many other countries in Europe and elsewhere. It is important for that collaboration to continue.
The emphasis of the current public sector agreement is on lower paid workers, including teachers, nurses and others as they exit college. There are significant other supports that we are trying to ramp up in the context of the budget we set out last year, including the renter's tax credit.
The local bargaining mechanism is also an opportunity for trade unions to involve themselves in that process and the additionality that is available through it. The outworking of this pay agreement is providing significant increases to core pay when we consider the overall increases over a two-and-a-half year period. We want to continue that collective approach when it comes to pay and industrial policy.
