Alex White (Labour)

On the principle underlying Senator Twomey's amendment, amendment No. 13, which provides for the possibility of reversing the pay cuts in the event of what are described as demonstrable improvements in efficiency occur in areas of the public service, I can understand where the Senator is coming from, but I am not sure whether it can be achieved through the amendment he has tabled. However, this demonstrates the importance of revisiting, even briefly, the reason we are here and why the unilateral pay cut was imposed through this legislation by the Government after a period of apparent progress in the negotiations with the public service unions. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, outlined what had occurred in his response to the Second Stage debate yesterday. There have been various other comments in this regard in the newspapers and the trade unions have set out to some extent how they interpret what happened.

The important point, in the context of the complex issues associated with public service reform which was touched on by Senator Callely, is whether we would prefer, as a country, to introduce these undoubtedly necessary changes by way of discussion and agreement or believe they can be conjured up in some way simply because people wish them to happen. Time and again, Members and people elsewhere have made the not unreasonable point that if the trade unions can list things they were prepared to give with regard to public service reform, why can they not just implement them? As I tried to point out yesterday, we must live in the real world. Changes in work practices - for example, the time at which an employee arrives at work, the possibility of transfer to other agencies or different parts of the city or country, or his or her preparedness to retrain, all of which are reasonable and progressive for any employee - involve changes in the way a person works day by day and we cannot make somebody co-operate. Life is not like that. One cannot issue an edict saying workers shall co-operate with a new set of work practices.

Of course, going back to Mr. Scargill's time, one could do what the UK National Coal Board and other employers did, which was to say that if employees did not change their work practices by a particular date, they would be closed down. Such a jackboot approach can be taken in some areas of the private sector. However, in the public sector which we all agree is and should be a progressive employer that is not how things should be done. It is not even a way by which things can be achieved. One cannot obtain people's co-operation and support in this way. Employees would not have confidence in their jobs and a sense of having a stake in the service they are providing so well - in every instance of which I am aware - for the public, if they were told things were to be changed by edict. At a basic level one must have co-operation and the best way to achieve it is through the workers' elected representatives in the trade unions. There is no question about this. Senator Callely is right when he states people do not want to engage in industrial action. I went on strike when I was a trade union member and have met many people who have been involved in strikes and trade unions and I have never met anyone who wanted to go on strike. I did meet people who, once they were on strike, found it very hard to come off because of the agreement being proposed or similar concerns. The dynamic changes once a strike starts. However, nobody wants to go on strike.

People talk about trade union leaders whipping up anger among their members, but that is not what is happening. The tragedy of what happened two weeks ago is that the leadership of the trade union movement, whom some here are so quick to slag off, are actually the people on whom we depend, with their leadership skills and qualities, in order to make progress on these issues. People can criticise them all they want if it makes them feel better, whether in the House or anywhere else, but, to paraphrase Fergus Finlay's quote about the Northern Ireland peace process, talks are not worth a penny candle unless the people who actually matter are at the table. Nothing has ever been achieved in negotiations with a group of people sitting on one side of the table and nobody sitting on the other side, or people sitting on the other side who do not have the confidence of their members and are not credible leaders.

The rug was pulled from underneath the recent talks and this has resulted in major fall-out. It cannot now be predicted what will happen with regard to future talks and, by extension, reform in the public service. When I make this point, people assume I am saying the unions should have a veto and stop all progress. However, I am not saying that and do not agree that should be the case. My party leader made the point that if the Labour Party were in government, it would not be a trade union Government. Trade unions have specific roles and responsibilities and do not determine the law of the land. That is absolutely not the case. They do not do so, nor would I ever advocate that they should but there is a vital role for trade unions in our society, in the workplace and, nationally, in the context of the public service. I do not know how the Government will seek to persuade, or can reasonably expect, the trade unions to return to the negotiating table on these vital issues. I hope those talks resume, just in case anybody doubts my bona fides. However, it will take some effort on the part of the Government and, I regret to say, an awful lot more than simply the supporters of the Government in this House and elsewhere saying the unions have a moral responsibility to go back to the table to do their duty. That will not wash this time. Something more will have to be done and leadership will have to be shown in that regard.

If I had the opportunity to speak on amendment No. 8, which I-----