Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

This report contains words such as "procedures", "protocols", "productivity", "performance" and "policy", which I am sure are familiar to seasoned negotiators, as pointed out by Senator O'Toole. We are also seeing words like "restructuring", "flexibility", "reconfiguration" and "consultation". Unfortunately and like the report to some degree, these are sterile. They fail to convey the hardship behind the necessity of the deal. The lives of people affected by the report have been changed and their dreams for the future have been shattered by events. The stark reality for low-paid members of the public sector is that their hardships have increased. The partners of a number of public servants with large mortgages and bank loans have lost their jobs. They are under significant financial pressure.

Public sector workers have an issue with trusting the Government to fulfil its side of the deal. Opposition politicians like me are taking a leap of faith in the unions and the Government to the effect that the deal will work for public service users and taxpayers. I hope that Government speakers will point out that the Government needs to acknowledge its role in causing this situation. The Government has never seemed to believe that it must apologise to public sector workers for putting them in this mess in the first place.

All the gains public sector workers made from the first and second benchmarking processes have effectively disappeared as a result of the Government's mismanagement of the economy.

The Croke Park agreement is a mechanism to extract our public finances from the mess in which they are at present. The Government should acknowledge that it was responsible for getting us into our current difficulties. It should also acknowledge that it is asking a great deal of public sector workers in order that we might extricate ourselves from those difficulties.

There is a need to stabilise industrial relations across the public sector and to commence implementation programmes that underpin this deal in the immediate future. The reason for this is that productivity and competitiveness within the entire economy are greatly influenced by the public sector. If we do not deal with the industrial disputes that are taking place at present or if we fail to introduce reforms as a matter of haste, this will affect our ability to emerge from the recession. The Government must acknowledge the role it played in causing the problems to which I refer, it must apologise and it must reach out in partnership to everyone in the public sector in order that this deal might be implemented. There is no indication that the Government wants to play a partnership role such as that I have outlined. People's trust seems to have evaporated and there is no sense that those on the Government side want to acknowledge their failings in the interests of progressing matters. Those in government want everyone to speak in positive terms. However, it is also necessary to acknowledge one's mistakes.

There is a need for solid evidence with regard to increased flexibility and mobility. We must move beyond merely uttering these words. What is meant by increased flexibility and mobility? What will be the nature of the increased efficiencies and productivity that are supposed to emerge in the coming months and years? About what are those in government actually talking? What is the nature of the revised work practices that are being contemplated? Words such as those to which I refer have been used for many years by senior union management and the Government. Changes have been introduced in the public sector in the past but we will be asking for major changes in the coming weeks and months.

How will it be possible to manage public sector numbers in such a way that services will not be reduced? A simple example in this regard relates to the reduction in the number of home help hours which has been implemented across the HSE. The maximum number of such hours per week is now 7.5. Home help services are probably the least costly of those provided by the HSE and those who provide them are among the lowest paid. The individuals to whom I refer are front-line staff who deal directly with patients and their numbers are going to be reduced dramatically in the coming months. This represents a direct attack on front-line services.

Last night, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, referred to employing people from outside the public service. However, he did not provide any great indication of what he means in this regard. There is an excellent ethos within the Civil Service, which is based on fairness and impartiality. It is extremely difficulty to marry a public sector ethos with that which obtains in the private sector. Some of the difficulties relating to the primary care centres the HSE is attempting to establish arise from trying to marry the ethos of the private sector with that of the public sector. Even though the final goal of both sectors is to deliver the best possible service to patients, they have a different way of achieving that goal. Difficulties and complications can arise in trying to bring the two together.

There is a need for further information to be provided in respect of this matter. It should not merely be stated that we should bring in people from outside the civil and public service and that we should be sending people from within the Civil Service into the private sector. It is not that simple, particularly if we are concerned with improving the overall services provided by the Government and the public sector.

It is stated in the Croke Park agreement that those who earn less than €35,000 per annum will be the first to benefit from any rising tide that may occur as a result of the deal's implementation. In such circumstances, it is strange that the unions which represent the lower paid within the civil and public service were the first to reject the deal. I accept there was a lack of clarity in respect of certain aspects of the deal prior to certain unions balloting their members. However, there is a sense that those to whom I refer do not really believe that the Government is serious about its commitments in this regard. There is a need for even greater clarity in order that people can buy into the Croke Park agreement. It is not a case that the unions, the Government or the Opposition must buy into it; what is required is that ordinary public servants buy into it.

There is a need to indicate, in a non-confrontational way - that is, there must be no threat of a sword being held over people's heads - what might happen if the agreement fails. For example, what would happen in the immediate future if we did not stabilise our public finances? Will there be another round of pay cuts, will taxes be increased, will social welfare payments be reduced or will pension arrangements be altered? We must be realistic in respect of this matter. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has indicated that in respect of next year's budget he is seeking a cut of €1 billion in capital spending and an increase in the tax take of €1 billion. If one is familiar with budgetary matters, one will be aware that there are not many areas from which €1 billion can be extracted. From where will the additional €1 billion from the €3 billion the Minister is seeking come? Outside pay, pensions and social welfare, the Government does not spend a great deal of money. From where will the additional €1 billion come? Will it be from the area of social welfare, from further pay cuts or from alterations in pension arrangements?

People may not understand exactly what is going on but they have an instinctive grasp of certain matters. The Government hiding behind big figures and failing to indicate what might happen will make public servants, as a matter of instinct, distrust it. We are engaged in a row at present with regard to how much of an input Europe should have in respect of our budget. The Government should be more open with its own people and provide further information with regard to what it intends to do.

What will be the position in ten years if we delay taking decisions now? If we double our national debt every two years or so and if we ultimately add €100 billion to that debt, the interest payments alone will be the equivalent of the budget required by a Government Department. What will happen to social welfare payments in future if this eventuality comes about? What will happen to the pensions of civil and public servants who are due to retire in ten years' time when the country will be broke and on its knees? Consideration must be given to these matters.

Finally, I wish to focus on the health sectoral agreement, which states that 11 measures will be implemented with immediate effect. These measures are good but they do not reflect the meat of the agreement. The latter is reflected in the 12th measure, which relates to "the introduction of an extended working day covering the period 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.". This is the crux of the problem. The Government is in a position to deal with many minor issues. However, decisions in respect of the major issues which will really lead to reform in the way the service operates are being delayed. There is a need to speed up the process and to be more open with the civil and public service, with those who use the services provided and with taxpayers.