Alex White (Labour)

I thank Senator Doherty for sharing his time with me. Owing to an oversight on my part, I thought this debate was to continue into the afternoon. Therefore, I am grateful to have time to contribute.

I listened carefully to what Senator Brady said. I have rarely heard a more balanced and fair-minded treatment of the current situation in regard to industrial relations and the Croke Park deal throughout the debate in recent weeks. What he said was right and fair. It evinces an experience he clearly has had, as I have had for a number of years, as a trade unionist and someone who worked within trade unions and understands the complexity of the situation for those faced with a proposal who possibly could be characterised as trying to make a decision between something that is deeply unpalatable, on the one hand, and catastrophic, on the other. People are trying to make a decision based on the two options presented to them, neither of which is palatable and or they wish to take. However, they are being asked to accept one or other option and that is what they will do.

I endorse what my party leader, Deputy Gilmore, said, on the publication of the agreement - when he commended Mr. Mulvey and the parties who had taken part in the negotiations on the work they had done - that it will need to be considered by trade union members in a calm and rational way, as Senator Brady said, taking all factors into consideration, including the need for public service reform, for which I agree there is a pressing need, the state of the national finances, the level of unemployment and conditions in the private sector. They are grave issues which must be taken into account and I have no doubt they will be by the many thousands who will vote on the agreement in the coming weeks.

Unfortunately, I missed much of the debate. I accept it would have been better if I had heard much of what was said. Apparently, my party was mentioned on a few occasions during the course of the debate, which was not entirely unexpected and not entirely unrelated to a certain recent opinion poll about which many seemed to be very excited.

A question that arises is what is the role of public representatives in circumstances where a deal or draft agreement such as this is being voted on. I am not aware, in all my years of observing public and trade union affairs, of Opposition parties ever endorsing a deal or draft agreement or being asked to do so. What is behind this is a lamentable attempt to politicise what is happening. People should be very careful and pull back from this. In that context, I refer to Mr. Jack O'Connor who has been praised. It has been said he is doing a very difficult job and so on. He is a man people were very happy to demonism up to a few weeks ago but whom they are now happy to praise as someone who is at the heart of what needs to happen. People are being encouraged to go with what he recommends. I have enormous respect for him and he is somebody I know well.

What do we believe we can achieve in this debate? Is it that we believe that by taking a particular position we can encourage or change people's minds as to how they will vote? I do not accept that people seriously believe that what will be said this afternoon in this Chamber, for which I have great respect, or what will be said by political leaders will be in any way decisive in terms of the way people will vote on the agreement. They have to take into account what their union executives say, whether it be the CPSU or otherwise. They will have to make a decision based on their future and that of their family and the situation they face on a practical level every day.

It is extraordinary that people are quick to say we should now look at what Mr. Jack O'Connor is saying and that he is the person on whose judgment we should be relying; I would have thought there would be a premium on his judgment in terms of how we can get across the line with this deal. Which individuals in the country have the best judgment on what is required to get us across the line with it? I believe they are Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Begg. What do they say about public representatives and political parties? Mr. O'Connor has appealed to politicians in all parties to refrain from commenting on the proposed Croke Park agreement in order to allow trade union members time during the balloting period to focus on the intrinsic merits, or otherwise, of the proposals made. I will not be told, anymore than anybody else here will be told, by Mr. O'Connor what I should say or not say or whether I should speak. It is interesting, however, that this is the person who is now being lauded as being the man who will get us across the line with this deal. The Minister of State was quite calm; he did not oversell the deal or over-extend himself. That is exactly the tone that should be adopted.

I agree very much with what is included in the agreement. It is a framework which presents a necessary agenda for public service reform. The Minister is correct in saying it will go a long way towards ensuring the engagement of public service workers in their futures, which is want one wants. As I have stated previously in this House, one cannot impose change on people in terms of getting their co-operation. One can cut staff and move people around by stealth but at the end of the day if one wants a working, professional, loyal public service, the only way to achieve it is to allow people themselves to negotiate on all the issues of flexibility and change required, which I accept are required.

The best way forward in the circumstances is to allow the experienced trade union leaders and their members to reflect carefully on what is at stake. I do not believe it is a matter on which political parties should call for a vote one way or the other, although we have been called on to comment and have done so. Let us hope we now have a degree of agreement for public service reform contrary to the dreadful crisis before Christmas in terms of the attempt to go down a particular road, which appeared to blow up in everybody's face.