Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion, which is timely in light of what happened last week. It is fair, rational and well thought-out. It underpins something that is critically important in the overall context of public sector reform. Real reform should involve more than paying reduced salaries to public and civil servants. The only way for real reform to come about is by means of engagement. It is clear that the carrot and stick approach, which almost involved threatening and intimidatory behaviour towards the end when it was suggested that the pay of public servants would be cut by 7% across the board if the deal was not accepted, was not helpful at the best of times.

Social partnership has served this country well. I think most political parties support it. Obviously, Fine Gael is quite happy that it has fallen at this juncture. It was never ideologically, emotionally or politically attached to it. At a time when this nation is still vulnerable and is trying to restore confidence internally, domestically and internationally, industrial unrest is the last thing we need. I hope the skills of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and, more importantly - I do not mean any disrespect when I say this - the State industrial relations apparatus, including the Labour Relations Commission, are used to find a way through this impasse when those involved sit down together.

I cannot claim to have an indepth knowledge of the internal workings of a union like the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and others have. However, my impression is that this proposal was rejected because there was a perception that lower-paid workers, front-line workers and those who carry out a great part of public duties as they deliver services were being unfairly targeted. That might be an unfair perception, but that is certainly how it seemed to an outsider looking in. For all those reasons, it is important for us to acknowledge that nurses, gardaí and others who deliver front-line services on a daily basis would have been most unfairly affected by these proposals. The Minister was right when he said the core pay of people under a certain level was being protected, but he should accept that the vast majority of people who do shift work, who provide front-line services and who work outside the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. would have been unfairly affected if these proposals had been accepted. That has to be acknowledged when the negotiating table is revisited.

I suppose the area in which I have the most interaction with unions at this juncture is the health care sector, as my party's spokesperson on health. There was a genuine concern that the graduate scheme which was announced last year would undermine the nursing profession by requiring some of our highly qualified, motivated and committed nurses to start working on lesser pay than their peers with the same responsibilities. Such schemes genuinely undermine our workers.

I understand the difficulties the Minister is facing. I recall the difficulties we faced when we were in government. The Minister and his colleagues might not have acknowledged them in the same way when they were in opposition. Perhaps they exploited them. We can put that aside. The key issue is whether these people feel they are valued by the State. The best way to reward them is to accept the important role they play in the delivery of public services. I think that role has been undermined. I have previously made the point that it is inherently unfair to ask a generation of people who are now coming out of college - they were in primary or secondary school when certain decisions were made, supported and encouraged - to carry the can for the difficulties we presently face. I accept that we started it to some extent. It is intergenerational solidarity in reverse. We are asking those who are coming out of college to accept being paid less for something they had no hand, act or part in. They did not even vote in the relevant general elections.

To be quite blunt about it, I do not think this matter has been handled in a wonderfully diplomatic way. I expected more from the Minister, Deputy Howlin. I would have expected other members of the Cabinet, who will remain nameless, to have handled it in a ham-fisted way. In light of his background and his membership of the Labour Party, I expected the Minister to have a more intimate knowledge of the workings of the trade union movement. Any renegotiations should be based on parity and fairness. The Government should not ask people who were kids in secondary school or college when certain decisions were made, and who may never have voted, to carry a disproportionate burden as the State tries to address the difficulties in its public finances. That is something that should be acknowledged.

I find that Irish people are inherently decent and fair. When union members were asked to vote for this proposal, in effect they were asked to rubber-stamp the imposition of an unfair burden on those who provide front-line services and those who have just joined the public service or are about to do so. The unfairness of the proposals that were presented should be acknowledged when the Labour Relations Commission, the Government and others enter into overarching negotiations. If the Government removes the threat, that will represent a signal that it values public services, particularly front-line services.

See this speech in context