Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:notes the:

— rejection by public sector employees of the Labour Relations Commission's proposals on pay and conditions;

— failure of the Government to disclose all relevant information concerning the draft agreement;

— difficulties that the proposed changes to conditions of employment would have had for many families;

— inconsistency of treatment of different categories of public sector employees under the Government's proposals; and

— disproportionate impact that the proposed measures would have had on the pay and earnings of frontline and shift workers;

recognises the:

— huge sacrifices made by public sector employees and pensioners in recent years;

— ongoing savings being delivered by the current Croke Park Agreement;

— significant benefit to the economy and society that the absence of industrial action in the public sector has achieved;

— need to ensure that further reductions in the overall public sector pay and pensions bill occur in a fair and structured manner; and

— importance of a shared commitment to reform by all stakeholders in the delivery of public services; and

calls for:

— immediate engagement by the Government with public sector employees with a view to obtaining a balanced agreement that can secure widespread support amongst public sector employees;

— confirmation that the Government will not legislate for an across the board 7 per cent cut in public sector pay; and

— a commitment to full disclosure of all relevant facts prior to the conclusion of a new agreement on public sector pay.

It is now nearly a week since we got word that the so-called Croke Park II proposals had been rejected. Close to two thirds of public sector workers and 70% of individual unions voted against the deal. This has to be seen as a stunning rejection not just of the Government's proposals but also the manner in which it went about selling the deal.

For the second time in 12 months, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform embarked on what he promised would be a major cost-saving initiative on the overall public sector pay bill. This is in addition to his failure to persuade the public to support his Oireachtas inquiries referendum some time ago. We have a clear picture now of a Minister who talks a good game but fails to deliver on the big occasions.

In the 2012 budget he told us he would secure €75 million in savings in 2012 and €150 million in savings in respect of allowances by the end of 2013. At the time, I recognised the current system was unnecessarily cumbersome and was in need of being streamlined. However, the process put in place failed to achieve the targets set. In fact, by October of last year, the Minister had to admit the savings he had achieved to date would only be a fraction of his original targeted amount.

The Minister must bear the lion's share of responsibility for the outcome of last week's vote. His words certainly did no favours to those unions which were attempting to sell the deal to their members. In his article on 5 April in the Irish Independent, he upped the ante considerably in a manner that may have been a significant contributing factor. It is worth reminding the Minister what he said:

In the absence of these measures, a straight pay cut would require a greater ask to reach the same target. Public servants, that under this agreement face a gross reduction in pay of, say 4%, could potentially see that increase to 7% in the absence of an agreement. The €300 million savings to the pay bill are in this year's budgetary arithmetic. Those savings will have to be made from the pay bill – the money simply is not provided for. Similarly, the €1 billion savings will have to be achieved by 2015.


If they cannot be made within the confines of an agreement with the public service unions, they will have to be made unilaterally. This will require legislation. The precise nature of that legislation will be considered if that eventuality arises.

I have seen the Minister's performance in the run-up to the Croke Park II vote described as swashbuckling in some quarters. If that is the case, his appearance on last Tuesday night's “Six One News” can only be described as extraordinarily meek by comparison. He looked somewhat shell shocked as he told the nation, “I will be taking a phone call from the troika tonight to explain what happened." It is extraordinary to find that the Labour Party, once so closely aligned with the trade union movement, now appears to be so out of touch with public sector workers. He went on the claim that he would run out of money before the end of the year if €300 million in savings were not achieved. This is despite the fact that the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, currently has €30 billion in cash. I am not recommending he dips into those reserves but it is extraordinary to claim the State will run out of money when it has such reserves. The statements are mutually contradictory.

What we have not seen from the Minister as yet is any serious analysis of why the deal was rejected or what can be done to rescue the situation to prevent it descending into the same level of farce to which the review of allowances last year descended. The unions opposed to Croke Park II launched an equality audit of the proposals which focused on the impact of changes in working conditions. These issues did not receive as much attention as the pay-cut elements of Croke Park II but I believe they were the decisive factor in the rejection of the agreement. Among the issues the audit highlighted was that the provision for additional hours would have a considerable negative impact of people with caring responsibilities be it for children or parents. In worst-case scenarios, this could force carers out of the workplace or put significant additional financial burdens on them. Restrictions on job sharing and flexitime are also likely to have been a considerable factor in the heavy defeat which the proposals suffered. When the draft agreement was published by the Labour Relations Commission, I met young mothers working in the public sector in Portlaoise who were crying at having to work extra hours and spend much less time with their families. Work-life balance was a significant factor. The audit stated:

These proposals discriminate on the family status ground because they will disproportionately disadvantage men and women with caring responsibilities in the public sector - the Employment Equality Acts prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on a number of grounds including gender and family status. It could further be a matter for the European Commission to adjudicate on, given the provisions of the equal treatment directives on the ground of gender.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of the Government's proposals was the very harsh impact they would have had on front-line and shift workers. Everyone understands the critical nature of the services they provide, yet the Government felt it was acceptable to target them for a disproportionate slice of the overall savings for which they were looking. Two different workers with the same current take-home pay would have seen vastly different changes in their income depending on the extent to which they work shift and overtime. The 24/7 Alliance produced detailed analysis of the loss that would be suffered by different categories of workers. In the case of a staff nurse, the reduction in earnings allowing for the theoretical cost of having to work additional hours and the increment freeze is approximately 11.4% of pre-agreement total pay. For a paramedic, the effective loss would be 9.7% and 9.1% for a care assistant. For a Garda it would be 5%. I know the Minister will dispute these figures. However, he disputes the number of Sundays worked by some categories of public workers saying it is fewer than 26. He also played a little bit of fun and games with the statistics by talking about the average pay cut. Included in this figure by the Minister are those who will not get a pay cut at all. That means he is trying to reduce the overall average, notwithstanding some people would have a disproportionate higher cut than the average.

These represented a massive additional hit to workers who have already contributed very significantly to reducing the public sector pay bill. We did not get a clear rationale from the Minister as to why he was proceeding in this way. In fact, what we did get was black propaganda as he publicly stated those unions who had remained in the talks had been able to get a better deal for their members while his officials briefed about a supposed €300 million pot of gold which would be available to sweeten the deal for those unions who supported it.

We believe it is imperative the Government urgently engages with public sector unions to seek an agreed approach to public sector pay. The absence of widespread industrial unrest has marked Ireland apart from other countries. The Government's approach has put this at risk. We believe it is possible to conclude an agreement which achieves the necessary savings while achieving fairness and social solidarity.

I welcome the announcement that the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission has been asked to make contact with the parties in the coming days to establish if there is a basis for a negotiated agreement. I hope tonight's motion has had the effect of galvanising the Minister into action.

Unfortunately, since the rejection of the agreement, his words have spread further confusion. Last week, when I asked the Minister what actions he now proposed to take, he indicated that most of those who would have been subject to pay cuts under the agreement would have seen their salaries restored after 2016. However, for those workers who were being asked to work longer hours, see reductions in overtime payments or the abolition of the double pay rate on a Sunday, no such assurance was forthcoming. This is symptomatic of what can only be described as a divide-and-conquer strategy. Last week, he claimed those earning over €65,000 will only have to take a temporary pay cut and will have their salaries returned at the end of the agreement.

However, the Minister has given no such commitment to those people who work on Sundays and nor did he give a commitment to the people being asked to work additional hours, most of whom are on low pay, that those extra hours worked would be of a temporary nature. Instead, he looked after the high paid workers by telling them they would have to take a cut but it would be restored to them in 2016. That is my understanding of what the Minister said here last week.

I accept the need for reform and modernisation in the public service. The Croke Park model is still the best one to achieve that and we support the principles that underpin it. If a new agreement is to be negotiated and put to public sector workers, it cannot be voted on in the absence of full disclosure of all relevant facts to all parties. By that I mean the various letters issued to individual trade unions by the Minister's Department, public sector management and the Labour Relations Commission. We are aware of at least ten letters having been issued shortly after the deal was negotiated, and I understand further clarification would have issued later. I asked the Minister to disclose those and he refused to do so, stating that it is not the normal practice. The Minister has regularly stated that he is in favour of freedom of information, yet he is hiding behind the old practice of not disclosing matters that are part of the labour conciliation process. This is the first time a deal has been voted down in terms of pay agreements at national level and the circumstances require all correspondence regarding that deal to be published. How can the Minister expect the Parliament to move forward with legislation if he is concealing facts as to the clarifications and implications of that deal?

Further savings are needed, and an agreed framework is the best way to bring that about. It is worth noting that the vast majority of savings achieved to date have been from measures introduced by the previous Government. Last year, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, claimed that, "A totality of €2 billion has been taken out of the public sector pay and pension bill as a result of the measures since 2008 and the measures that Brendan Howlin is introducing now". However, the reality is that the Government has not up to now introduced any significant measures to control the public sector pay bill.

The claim of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, that the Croke Park agreement was "an extraordinary tool for change" and that most of his European Union colleagues would give their right arm to have such an agreement rings hollow given his ham-fisted approach to the recent talks and their aftermath. The country wants and expects good public services. Good industrial relations and a shared commitment to reform are a cornerstone of the delivery of such services. The Government must learn the lessons of its failure to deliver this agreement. It must be open to hearing what public sector workers have to say and respond in a transparent manner.

See this speech in context