Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I notice the media have jumped on the fact the public service pay deal is a bad one and will be rejected by the members. That is the news story of the day and the way it is being played. It is important to recognise that at a time when the economy is on its knees for whatever reason, and we have discussed this many times, and when there is pressure on every public service, there is no possibility of doing what might be described as a good deal. The idea that the unions and social partners could negotiate an increase in salaries at a time when we are cutting back on items such as those Senator Healy Eames mentioned is ludicrous.

As I said in the House, the public sector union leadership was prepared before Christmas to deal with cutbacks in salaries in certain areas and it was prepared to do so again last week. It will be a very difficult deal for public sector unions to sell to their members. I appeal to Members to recognise that this deal was the best that could be done at this time. It creates certainty and the hope is - I am an optimist - that it will bottom out the difficulties for public servants, lead to transformation and build on improved rewards from here on in. That is the basis on which it might or might not be accepted. Journalists have a responsibility to ask questions of all the people involved. For example, if this is rejected, what is the new strategy or where do we go from here? There are serious issues involved. It is a very difficult time to be a trade union leader in the public and private sectors. This is where the difficulty lies.

Yesterday the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs met a farmer's wife who has lost her contributory pension. There is a huge debate taking place on this matter. I have raised this issue up to six times in this House over the past ten years. People pay A rate PRSI and when they reach 65 years, 66 years or whatever the appropriate age, they are entitled to claim a contributory pension. That is the law of the land unless one happens to be working for one's spouse who happens to be an auctioneer, a doctor, an accountant or a farmer. For some reason, all we have said about equality legislation since 1973 has gone out the window. Even though one has paid one's contributions, the State has decided that one is not entitled to this contribution because one might not really be working for one's spouse. It is completely wrong. I have raised this issue before and asked people in the legal area to look at it in terms of equality. I would like to see a case taken to Europe because it is inequitable and old fashioned.