Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Perhaps we should take a more charitable view of their silence. I know the Minister of State is an historian and no doubt he will have appreciated Robert Bolt's screenplay for A Man for All Seasons. We should perhaps take a more charitable view of the silence of the Labour Party in the light of the exchanges between Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell, in putting it to Sir Thomas More that his silence was an eloquent denial of the king's title, gave the example of taking a dagger from his sleeve. The exchange was as follows:

Cromwell: Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Although it is not specifically relevant, I shall share the remaining portion with the House:

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Senators will forgive that brief tangent at the end. I hope, however, they will not think that in its entirety it was a tangent. Perhaps we should take the charitable view and believe the Labour Party's silence thus far, in fact, betokens consent to the provisions of the Croke Park agreement. That would also be the view to be taken in the light of Senator O'Toole's comments on the vote of the Civil Public and Services Union. He pointed out that as 74% had voted and that two thirds had voted against it, therefore, just less than half of its membership had voted against it. We might assume that those who did not vote also consent to the agreement. Whether that is to be too optimistic or to stretch it too far, it would be better to interpret the 26% who did not vote as consenting to the provisions of the agreement. Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the best deal in town.

At this time we need to be united and realistic. If we did not know the consequences of disunity before the events in Greece took place, we certainly know them now.

Last week I spoke to an American tourist who told me how her work life as a public relations executive in the private sector had changed in the past year or so. Instead of there being two people to handle the set of accounts, she now must deal with all of them, a situation that has major implications for her free time. However, she is glad to have her job. That is the reality.

There are items in this agreement which might have shocked people a number of years ago but we cannot afford to ignore the positives. These include the guarantee that there will be no further cuts in public service pay for serving public servants and that as soon as there are sustainable and verifiable savings, we will look at the impact the pay cuts have had and, in so doing, will focus first and foremost on the lower paid. That is extremely desirable. There is the guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies. It is right and proper and to be welcomed that the quid pro quo will be an examination of work practices and flexibility within the provision of services in the public service and an openness to redeployment in other areas of the public service or in defined related areas. Again, there is balance in that matters such as commuting will be taken into account.

What runs through this agreement and is reflected in the consensus responses of people such as Senator O'Toole and in the support of the main Opposition party, which, rightly and commendably, chose not to play politics with this but to act and vote in the national interest, is the desire for fairness at its heart. There is an acceptance that pain cannot be avoided and a taking on board that what seems to be unjust in the short term must be tolerated. There is fairness too, reflected in the issues I mentioned, the minimisation of further cuts and pain to people in the public service, a recognition of our moral duty at the first opportunity to look at the impact of the pay cuts and to try and make such recompense as will be possible, especially for the lower paid.

Mar sin, deirim arís go bhfuil an-bhrón orm nár chuala mé go fóill ó Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go dtiocfadh an ceannaireacht caoi uathu ionas go léireofaí nach bhfuil ach bealach amháin chun déileáil leis an ngéarchéim ina bhfuilimid. Is é an bealach sin ná glacadh leis an chomhaontas agus dul ar aghaidh ón bpointe seo. Is fiú freisin smaoineamh ar an ngealltanas atá anseo nach ndéanfaí breis ciorraithe ar dhaoine agus, nuair a bheidh airgead le spáráil, go gcuirfí súil athuair ar an gcaoi inar féidir linn cúiteamh a thabhairt do dhaoine, go háirithe iad siúd ar na tuarastail is lú.