Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and that the Taoiseach took the time to address the House. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, who was furiously nodding in agreement with Senator Morrissey when the latter said that who one votes for matters. I congratulate all parties involved, including senior officials in the Department of the Taoiseach and other Departments.

Notwithstanding comments made in passing, I will try to avoid the main issues within the agreement because they will be well-debated. Instead, I want to look forward and back and place a benchmark on what we have achieved and what we are trying to do. We should approach matters in specific terms that would allow for addressing issues, many of which have been raised by Senator Morrissey.

Whatever people say about what social partnership has achieved, I take a more positive view than others. I will speak on certainties. Since the beginning of social partnership, Irish productivity has been the highest in Europe. In the past 15 or 16 years, only in 2001 was Ireland not ranked among the top two or three countries in this regard. Through the 1990s, we were by far the most productive country. What does this mean? While people see words like "productive" as simply being nice to use, it means that Irish workers worked longer and harder and produced more. No one in Europe can gainsay this fact and no country in Europe can match Ireland's record in terms of industrial peace, which is directly and solely attributable to the partnership process.

I agree with Senator Morrissey in that there are many other issues, but productivity and industrial peace have been key. We saw their importance to all of the partners when the recent railway wildcat strike took place. The following day, the unions said the strike was unofficial, they did not support it, it needed to stop and their employees should return to work. Some time passed before that was done. That situation would not have occurred in any other European country because people in the Irish trade union movement have the confidence to determine whether something must be done. They have given commitments, signed off on something and, after shaking hands on a deal, they stuck with it. Social partnership has created this situation.

There is no democratic deficit. The Government, which was elected by the people, is engaging with civic society and allowing the pillars thereof to engage with one another. I would like people to see one part of this process, namely, where the four pillars sit down with the Government in plenary session. Therein, the hard men and women of a group must listen to their counterparts in the other groups and are forced to engage with issues such as economic growth and creating the climate for job and wealth creation. It is telling to watch strongly committed trade unionists who have never engaged in that process now doing so and answering questions.

It is very telling to witness a public sector trade union leader having to listen to a representative of small shopkeepers bemoaning the difficulties of regulation, paperwork and reporting, and having to be aware of them. I could give 24 more examples. It is similar for the business community having to listen to the trade unions refusing to accept situations where workers are not treated properly and fairly in the course of their work. They have to listen to bank employees who say they cannot accept a situation where the third largest company in the country, which made a profit of €1.5 billion last year, is now reducing the pension entitlements of its workers. Such matters have to be addressed. The agreement is important because it involves engagement and progress is made in the way it reduces tensions among the different parties.

It is not a conjuring trick but a well-worked economic model. The priority is to create the conditions for growth and wealth creation, because without them there will be no share-out. There is no point in unions arguing about the redistribution of wealth, to use an old phrase, or share-out, to use a modern one, if there is nothing to share. If we only argue about a bit of the cake, rather than the size of the cake, we will not get anywhere. Arguments on such issues took place in the first month of negotiations in Government Buildings because people had to sit and listen to the Department of Finance, the ESRI, Mr. McCarthy from the Department of the Taoiseach and the heads of various other bodies. They put their side of the story and produced their best information. Everybody knows they will return to the negotiating room next year and in following years, so despite what the media think there is no game of bluff being played. If the Department of Finance put forward a proposition that time does not justify or on which it appears to be completely wrong then it will lose credibility and credibility is all that counts in negotiations.

I have left the House with just two certainties about productivity and industrial peace. I could go into many more issues but the picture would get greyer and greyer and would attract argumentation. The workers of Ireland have created, for good or ill, a 24-7 economy. One only has to travel to another European country and try to buy something on a Sunday afternoon to see that. Maybe they are better off, but we have created flexibility and movement.

I do not expect people to agree with me but I can provide chapter and verse on modernisation. For example, it appeared to be a conjuring trick to be able to manage the transition from the health boards to the HSE. Senators will remember the problems politicians had when changes were made to individual health boards but all the workers made the transition to the HSE fluently.

I have been trying to give people simple ideas they can use in discussions. Events in Europe in the past two years convince me of the need for social partnership. France went rigid with fear over job security, workers' rights and the permanency of employment and effectively closed down. We are trying to avoid that, which is a huge task and took up most of the time during the talks. When one solves a problem before it happens one never receives credit for it, which is one of the problems of social partnership, but we are trying to anticipate problems.

Anticipating problems with pensions closed down Italy for a while, and Germany and France, as did the issue of new workers coming into a society and the problems encountered ensuring they were not exploited so that they could become part of society. I could refer to more issues but they are just some.

This agreement is about vision, strategy and moving forward to create a society that is fairer and in which people feel looked after. I could also talk about the problems social partnership has created and could produce a long list of things with which I am unhappy. All the partners have delivered in the past and are addressing issues for the future that no other European countries are. We are creating a unique mould, which is why others are interested in our progress. I congratulate all the parties, particularly Mr. Dermot McCarthy, the Secretary General of the Department of the Taoiseach. The work he has done and his commitment, like that of the Taoiseach and of all who were involved, are something we should recognise.