Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

The overwhelming rejection by the CPSU, of which much has been heard today in the Chamber, of the Croke Park deal again emphasises the far from favourable response to it in the public sector, despite Government expectations. Other unions already have come out against the agreement and it is notable that it is the unions that represent the lowest paid workers in groups such as nurses who have been strongest in their rejection of it. The reason is that these are the same workers who have borne the brunt of the measures introduced thus far and who have little faith that the further cuts embodied in the deal will be balanced by the implementation of its positive aspects. Even among the union leaders who negotiated the deal there is little enthusiasm. Mr. Jack O'Connor admitted that had he reacted instinctively rather than strategically he would have rejected the offer. That is an indication of the difficult position in which trade unions representing public servants find themselves. On the one hand, there is a great deal of resentment at the manner in which they have been treated and, on the other, there is hope the last vestiges of social partnership can still provide some protection from the impact of the cuts already made and those threatened down the road. We have seen, however, that the Government and the employer organisations have no such commitment to social partnership. When it suited the Government, it rejected out of hand the proposals from the unions before Christmas. The only reason it offered the Croke Park deal was that it was aware of the anger among public service workers and saw it as a way of binding the unions to an agreement. Given the manner in which it has acted up until now, it will adhered to in regard to the concessions made by workers, but it will be abandoned if and when it decides to make further cuts.

A further indication that the Government and employers have abandoned social partnership which suited them during the good times was the proposal to introduce legislation to allow employers to pay below the minimum agreed rates on the basis of an inability to pay clause. That proposal is a direct consequence of lobbying by employers and will be strenuously opposed by the trade union movement.

It is in that overall context that workers view the Croke Park deal proposals. It is clear to many of them that they are being expected to carry the can for the incompetent elite who brought about the economic disaster and being forced, through the threat of facing something worse, to accept a pig in a poke on trust that the Government will honour its commitments to deliver on the positive aspects. It is the view of many that they can have no such trust, which is reflected in the reaction of those who have been balloted on the deal thus far.

It has been claimed that rejection of the deal will bring about an even worse situation. There is no doubt that the implications are, if the deal is rejected, that workers will be forced into taking more militant actions and that the Government, or any successor dominated by the same right-wing economic policies, will then feel free to attempt to impose even worse measures. That is true, but only if we accept that the current approach to the economic and financial crisis is valid. We have pointed out that there are alternatives based on shifting the onus for the crisis away from ordinary workers and placing it on those responsible for the mess. It would mean moving away from the current policy of imposing a massive burden on citizens to save the banks and the financial and property speculators. It is that perception which, above all, underlies the resentment and anger of workers in their attitude to the sacrifices they are expected to make and the cuts that have already been imposed upon them.

There is much talk about the national interest, but that does not carry much weight when contrasted with the way in which the banking and property elite have been treated, or the way in which those on higher wages in the public service were exempted from the cuts imposed on lower paid public servants, many of whom are entitled to family income support, which, in effect, means the State is subsidising its own pay cuts. Perhaps there is some logic to this, but it escapes me.

It is utter hypocrisy on the part of the Government to expect that people will accept all of this while they can clearly see that the so-called elite, including many who do not live in the State because their patriotism does not allow them to pay taxes or employ anyone here, are being cushioned or rewarded for their own incompetence. "Incompetence" is a word to describe what some of them were at. In other jurisdictions some of them would be mopping prison floors, rather than soaking up the sun on golf courses.

It is in that context that the deal is being considered. We must await the overall decision of union members when the ballots have been completed. However, one element is clear, namely, that we need to move away from the historic policies and create a strategy aimed at positive recovery based on our indigenous strengths and by directing the available resources to areas of growth, rather than creating a massive debt for future generations as a result of failed banks and property speculators.