Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil's sheer brass neck never ceases to amaze me. As outlined by the Minister, Fianna Fáil and its leader do not come to this issue with a clean pair of hands. The party that had no compunction in unilaterally slashing the pay of public sector workers is now attempting to pose as the new best friend of the public service. Its hope that the Irish people and public sector workers have short memories is as vain as this motion is nakedly self-serving. Like the Bourbons, Fianna Fáil has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Public servants do not need to cast their memories back too far to recall a party that at the stroke of a pen took thousands of euros per year from their pockets without even the fig leaf or the courtesy of attempting to engage with the trade unions on an alternative approach. The Government can do without Fianna Fáil's advice on this matter. The conduct of Fianna Fáil on this and other critical issues of national importance is the equivalent of the arsonist who starts chucking stones at the fire brigade while telling the gardaí that the blaze had nothing to do with him. It is incomprehensible and a distraction from the main issue which has been concentrating the minds of the Government and many trade union officials, namely, the question of how we can resolve this major challenge in a fair and equitable manner.

This motion makes extraordinary, inaccurate and downright misleading claims about the fairness and equity of the proposals voted on by public sector workers in recent weeks. I do not intend to go into any great detail about a set of proposals that were, all things being equal, objectively fair and progressive in that they took more from those who had more to give and asked those earning under €65,000 to make concessions on the productivity side but not on the core pay side. All that being said, public sector workers have given their view on the proposals and the Government and I completely respect the outcome of the ballot, as has been iterated by the Minister. While the outcome of the ballot demands that we seriously and earnestly reflect on the ramifications and the way forward, the mathematics and the required quantum of savings have not been altered.

I have huge respect for colleagues in the trade union movement who stayed the course and worked with the realities of the situation that confronted their members, as most progressive trade union leaders do. They confronted the situation as they objectively found it and worked under very challenging circumstances to ameliorate and mitigate the more egregious aspects of the propositions as originally tabled. I welcome the fact that the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission will engage with the public sector union leaders to scope out the prospect and potential for engagement. In this light, I believe trade union leaders would be reluctant to sacrifice some of the hard-fought gains extracted from the recent process - protection against outsourcing and excessive reliance on agency staff, no compulsory redundancies, protection of core pay for lower and middle-income workers and, crucially - if the House needs to be reminded - the benefits and opportunities provided by the system of collective approach traditionally taken in this country in recent years to the setting of wages and conditions in the public service. There is a limit to the amount and depth of reform that can be achieved by alternative approaches outside of arrangements arrived by collective agreement. I know this is a factor that will inform all our considerations in this House and those of the Government and unions in the coming days and weeks.

See this speech in context