Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I am extremely disappointed with the amount of time that has been allocated for the discussion on this partnership deal. It would have taken several days to deal adequately with this issue. In his address, the Taoiseach said that some people who are critical of the agreement have no alternatives to offer, but he is wide of the mark. People such as myself are critical of the current social partnership model but would be happy to submit an alternative model that would be all-embracing and would deal with the real issues affecting low-paid migrant workers as well as indigenous workers.

The two demonstrable outcomes of social partnership are its manifest failure to halt a trend towards increasing inequality — not to mention reducing or eliminating inequality — and the decline in trade union membership amongst workers. The new social partnership deal is not underpinned by an objective of bringing about a fairer distribution of wealth. That should be at the core of this deal but it is not even there. Its greatest flaw is that, like its predecessors, it fails the low paid completely.

While I welcome the fact it includes measures to improve the enforcement of labour law, it was outrageous that trade unions were forced to bargain for the rights of workers to be free from exploitation — imagine that in the 21st century. Vulnerable workers have had to await the outcome of a social partnership deal before seeing their existing rights enforced. The proper enforcement of existing labour law should not be seen as a concession to unions or used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. The requirement for workers to bargain for basic rights and entitlements is, along with the democratic deficit created by the process taking precedence over this House, among the fundamental defects of the social partnership process as it is currently structured.

A deal such as this must be deemed inadequate when the wage increases that have been conceded amount to a mere 10% over 27 months. This pay rise barely covers the rate of inflation over that period. Irish inflation is already soaring at significantly higher rates than the EU average of2.2%. At 3.9%, it is close to double that figure. At a time of growing income differentials between the highest and lowest paid workers, the additional miserly 0.5% increase for low-paid workers is derisory.

A recent NESC report found that in the Twenty-six Counties the richest 20% of the working age population now earns 12 times as much as the poorest. That represents one of the highest levels of income inequality among OECD countries. While increases contained in the new deal may seem significant to some higher paid workers, low-paid workers lose out where, as in this agreement, percentage wage increases are applied. Where are the measures to reduce wage differentials between the highest and lowest paid workers? These should have been at the core of any agreement dealing with pay issues.

I agree with the comments made earlier in the debate by Deputy Bruton, that special interests need to be faced down in the public service. However, there are even more pressing needs to face down the significant private sector interests. Much of what is contained in the agreement is broadly aspirational and reflects Government promises, already given, to implement legislation. In the past, it has taken the Government years to deliver on promises contained within social partnership deals. For example, the Dáil has only recently passed legislation on a commitment to parental leave contained in the last deal. The inclusion of the inability-to-pay clause means wage increases conceded in the agreement are inextricably linked to the term "competitiveness". If giving a pay increase is not in the interests of business and its competitiveness, the get-out clause lies in that argument.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to address many of the other issues concerning this agreement. On the whole, the deal as it stands is unacceptable and has been found wanting on many levels.

See this speech in context