Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fleming for putting forward the motion to allow us to discuss this issue this evening. I suspect that I have more sympathy for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister of State with responsibility for public service reform than most people on this side of the House having been in the very early stages of that Department and the Croke Park agreement. One of the things about the Minister that has frustrated me in the past few days is the fact that he keeps emphasising that we have a cheek to raise concerns about Croke Park II because we implemented unilateral cuts. Yes we did and they were very difficult, which is one of the reasons there are 19 of us here. Many fine colleagues paid a very serious price because of the opposition to those cuts and because they supported them. The Labour Party did not support them at the time.

In spite of that and the lack of trust between the public service unions and the Government that followed those cuts, we managed to proceed with and get agreement on the Croke Park agreement which was then used as the template for public service reform and industrial peace since 2010. When one looks at the situation across the world where many public and civil servants took to the streets to pursue objectives, what we had here since 2010 is a tribute to everybody who was involved - the implementation committee, the Department, the Ministers of the day and, more particularly, everybody on the ground who delivered substantially under Croke Park. They delivered changes in work practices, particularly in An Garda Síochána and the health and prison services, at a time when they knew there would be no increase.

People have taken very tough hits in the service. There is now an even greater breakdown of communication than had been the case in 2010 after two pay cuts. There seems to be a complete gulf in communications. It is very difficult to understand why the Government was unable to get the extension of Croke Park over the line when we were able to get the original Croke Park agreement through. One must look at the sequence of events since the draft agreement was made.

The Government sat back. It was not as passionate about supporting the agreement as the other side was about opposing it. Deputy Kitt spoke about how an equality analysis was carried out. There were a range of statements and surveys showing the difficulties of the proposed agreement. The thing that stuck in the craw of many workers was the continued assurance of Ministers that anybody whose core income was under €65,000 would be unaffected. That is true but one's core income could be so low that one depends on overtime and premium payments to make up the difference that pays one's mortgage and food bill. One gets those premium and overtime payments because one is working at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. defending the public interest and looking after the public's health and people's property. If those overtime and premium payments are being gutted, as they were in this deal, the assurance that one's core pay is not being affected is of little comfort. That is what kicked in on the agreement. People who were depending on premium and overtime payments because of the nature of their jobs looked at others who did not get overtime or premium payments but were on a much higher core salary and saw that their conditions were not going to be affected. That introduced the element of unfairness in this deal. This was not tackled but was allowed to take hold because it was true.

One then had the pot for those unions that stayed in and other difficulties. On one weekend at the beginning of October, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was saying one thing and another Minister was saying the complete opposite. At the same time, those opposing the deal were absolutely resolute and organised.

If the Government reflects on what happened in those few weeks, it will note that this was when much of the damage to the agreement occurred. It fails the fairness test because of the dependence on overtime and premium payments. If the Government had first addressed the issue of the dependence of many on their so-called premium and overtime payments and then worked on an agreement, the industrial relations climate in the public service might be better now.

The inception of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform was welcome. I supported its establishment and had envisaged such a Department in October 2010. Public sector reform is essential to the country's recovery. If this reform is implemented in the right way, it will produce savings and also a transformed service that can deal with the changing needs of citizens. I refer to many excellent examples. Revenue on-line has transformed how we pay taxes and deal with Revenue. Motor tax is payable on-line. The Internet has significantly changed the way we interface with State services, which services must be moved in that direction. Croke Park I offered a method. When I was a Minister of State, I observed that the higher echelons of the civil and the public service did not believe in public service reform; they think it is somebody else's business. This is an understandable attitude, given the pressures on budgets. However, it must be accepted that reform can deliver budget savings, as well as an enhanced service. I said three years ago that for many Secretaries General and many in senior management, public service reform was an item listed under Any Other Business on the agenda. I am still not convinced it is regarded as anything more than this.

Workers such as teachers, gardaí, nurses and health care professionals in hospitals are the people on the ground and have ideas about reform. They are the ones who can point to the waste of resources and better ways of working. They have put forward ideas which have been passed up the chain, but nothing comes of it. They do not see any sign that their input is valued. This highlights another difficulty encountered in the talks process. The representatives at the talks do not necessarily walk in the shoes of those whom they represent who are the workers on the ground. There was a disconnect on this occasion between some of the negotiators and some of those who worked in the service. It is surely within our capabilities to devise a way for those on the ground who have ideas to suggest changes to their work practices which would result in savings and, more important, in a better service for the patient, the student or the client. Their views need to be respected and taken on board. We have yet to really embrace the ideas of those on the ground which have the capacity to transform services.

It is very important that Mr. Kieran Mulvey is given the space to get on with his job. The LRC is an excellent organisation and Mr. Mulvey has given very significant service to the State. I have utter faith in him. He is the one person in this equation in whom people have trust. Messages from trade unions that they will not co-operate with the LRC are not helpful. If they are serious about trying to achieve a good deal for their members, they need to get involved.

The Government needs to change its use of language. Those earning less than €65,000 are not protected from cuts. I refer to those whose income is predominantly made up of overtime or premium payments. They are taking a hammering in these proposals. They do not like hearing they are protected because they are not. The Government needs to stand back and allow Mr. Mulvey and the LRC do their work. The co-operation of everyone is required in the interests of members. If Croke Park I was achievable after two unilateral cuts, as the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, likes to refer to them, surely it is within the abilities of the Government to deliver a Croke Park extension.

See this speech in context