Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, for this important debate. I wish to acknowledge the important contribution Fine Gael has made to this debate. It is difficult for the Opposition to indicate support for certain things, particularly when this can be interpreted - or misinterpreted - as being support for Government. Fine Gael's position reflects precisely that in which members of public sector unions find themselves. Many people who are considering the Croke Park agreement are wondering how they should respond to it. Inherently, most will want to do the right thing, but the question is: what is that? Instinctively, they wish to give the Government a bloody nose; they wish to have a go at it and all Oireachtas Members in that regard. My message is that if one wishes to have a go at the Government, there will be an opportunity to do so around the corner, as I presume there will be an election sooner rather than later. That has nothing to do with me as an Independent, as I am simply a creature of the waves in that regard. However, the point to those who are listening is that the time to deal with a Government is when there is an election. As for the Croke Park agreement, people must do that which is best for the country, themselves and the public sector.

One should also consider the international impact of what is happening in Ireland. People have seen the international impact of what is happening in Greece. Moreover, I have been making the point for the past two years that this has been seen regularly in Paris and Brussels and even in Italy and Germany. In Ireland we at least have a form of civic society structure that we call social partnership, whereby those who have a point to make can express it. I have spent my lifetime negotiating, as it has been my job to be a deal maker. The Government's problem is that this is a bad deal. Intuitively, people will ask what is good about the agreement from their individual perspectives as teachers, gardaí or civil servants and one must struggle hard to find what is good within it. One can perceive the reason people are opposed to it. Strategically, however, when I consider what should be done now, my advice is that I am certain people should support and go for it.

When a young teacher spoke to me last week, she told me of her lack of trust and belief in the Government. She expressed her disbelief it would deliver on the agreement's provisions and her wish not to do anything that would accommodate the Government. This reflects a viewpoint that, like me, the Minister of State must have heard also. However, I keep telling people to put that to one side because if the Government fails to deliver on the agreement, we will be back to where we started and nothing will have been lost except for a short period. Were the agreement to be accepted, there would be time enough for the Government to prove where it stands.

I wish to consider more closely a point made by Senator Twomey. Misleading information is being given to union members on this issue. I have met union members who honestly believe that if they vote "No", keep their heads down, say nothing and accept the existing cuts, this will all go away and that they will not be obliged to worry about it. It is crucially important to demolish and atomise this false argument. I will outline the reality, with which all Members are familiar. While I am no longer a trade union leader, I make this point as someone with a strong trade union background. The needs of the economy are known. It is also known that the Government's harsh measures - the pension and pay cuts that have received little public acknowledgement - have created savings. However, these savings must be maintained. It must be recognised that the Government will be obliged to make such savings in the absence of an agreement. Consequently, people such as the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach will make the decisions in consultation with the Cabinet and there will be no outside influence or impact on such decision-making. Alternatively, the passing of the agreement would mean the workers' representatives would engage with the Government, inform debate, engage in argumentation and influence the final outcome. The difference is having advocacy at that point. One must also recognise that what will emerge from the agreement will be a negotiated transformation, as opposed to an imposed outcome. As the objectives are known, the question is how we can deal with them.

The Government has secured an extraordinary deal from the trade union movement in that the latter has agreed to an extraordinary level of transformation, savings and job cuts, etc. It is acknowledged that this will be painful all round. I must express my admiration of those of my former colleagues in the leadership of the trade union movement who have taken this strong leadership role. I recognise this is not a populist role and that they are shipping much criticism for taking the correct line. However, this is what leadership is about.

Thirty years of experience has led me to the recognition that when addressing a group of trade unionists, they often do not wish to hear what one has to say. They know one is obliged to say it and they want one to say it, even though they will disagree with it. When one thinks about it, that is not as much of a conundrum as it first appears. It takes true leadership to recognise that this is what must be done. People want to hear the truth. While they do not like it and will oppose it, speak against it and intuitively fight it, they still want to hear it. They expect their leadership to give it and in this regard, need a commitment to the agreement on the part of the Government. Consequently, the Minister of State should state today that this agreement was made in good faith and that it is his intention, on behalf of the Government, to negotiate it line by line with the representatives of the workers, if it is passed. That is the way forward.

The trade union members who are listening should note there are options in this regard. The consequences and impact of voting "No" will mean a return to a long, drawn-out fight with the Government which may or may not produce some gains or improvements. I cannot call that, nor can anyone else. However, there would be some pain involved. On the other hand, acceptance of the deal would offer great potential for reversing some of the worst aspects of what has happened over a longer period. Were the Government to fail to deliver, people could revert to campaign mode against it. Consequently, the most that can be lost by voting "Yes" is time. However, voting "No" would have huge implications, result in huge potential for a loss of influence and focal sa chúirt.

In addition, I seek a more public acknowledgement from the Minister of State. I cannot blame him for what the media say about public servants and services, etc. However, it would be positive were those who have experienced much hardship in recent years to hear an acknowledgement of this on the part of the Government but that such measures had to happen. It is also important for the Government to recognise that, unlike the bankers and the former icons of our society, namely, the developers and those who were supposed to be the creators of employment but who were the ones who dropped us in this mess through gambling with our futures, the average public sector or private sector worker who signed up to a mortgage, car loan or house improvement loan did so honestly, honourably and with integrity. However, some of them now find themselves unable, for the first time in their lives, to meet the commitments into which they honestly entered. The Minister of State can understand my desire that he acknowledge how they feel about this. I appreciate he does understand because he has spoken to me a number of times about what can be done for those who find themselves in such a situation. This issue is of great importance and was raised this morning on the Order of Business by a number of Members. It is important that the Government authenticate the deal.

Another issue that arises pertains to the transformation of public services. While I look forward to another debate on the issue, I am excited by it and think it is great. I have stated there are some measures I would take, although the Minister of State's advisers and officials might not agree with me. However, every promotional position within the public sector should be filled through open competition. That would be the first step because the Civil Service and the public service contain some of the brightest people in the country. The public sector has enjoyed a huge intellectual investment but because people sometimes are rewarded for doing nothing, taking it easy or not taking the hard decisions in order to move to the next position when it becomes vacant, they are not using the extraordinary intellectual capacity that I saw in those with whom I went to school and college and with whom I have worked for over 30 years in various Departments. There is extraordinary ability residing within and senior civil servants should be aware of this. I know this and I am in a position to be able to compare them with others. They can do anything, but they need the challenge presented by open competition and they will deliver.

Another point is that as a trade union leader, I understand what is a work to rule. It means working to the terms of one's contract. People not doing part of their work is industrial action, albeit perhaps on a limited scale, but there is a difference. The Government is entitled to ask what is the difference. It is grossly unfair that public representatives are being treated differently from other people if civil servants are refusing to deal with them. That is wrong and unjustifiable, irrespective of however much they might dislike them.

I have heard people talk about the tyranny of the majority, that their union might vote against the agreement but that the largest public sector union might force them to go along with it. Some 74% of the membership of the union, the CPSU, that has been most vehemently opposed to the Croke Park agreement voted last night and two thirds of its members voted against the agreement. Two thirds of three quarters is a half - I was very good at maths in primary school. Slightly less than 50% of that union - as only 74% of its members voted - voted against the agreement. That is a point to remember by those people who trot out the argument of the tyranny of the majority. It is also a point to remember by those people who recognise that the importance of a majority is not the tyranny of the majority but how well it treats its minorities. The union that voted against this agreement last night is the union that has got the most out of this deal by way of a commitment that as improvements are made we can consider the lower paid first. That is hugely important to that union and I suspect that is why there was such a low vote among its members against it.

I have been misquoted and challenged on one aspect. When I talk about restoring pay cuts, I am not foolish enough to think that the money that was lost last year will ever be restored. I am talking about restoring the rates of pay. It is important for people who vote on this agreement to recognise that, first, we will have to meet the savings that are required by Government. As soon as that is done and established, the additional savings can then be used to build back up the pay rates of the other people in the public sector, and that is the way forward. Therefore, we need to make and embed the savings in the system and the continuing savings can then be used to try to win back some of the losses that have occurred.

The Minister of State has a great deal of negotiation ahead of him and I wish him well in that. If there any help I can give, I will be happy to do that. I completely support this agreement. I will conclude in the way I began by acknowledging the strong leadership line taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Fine Gael Party. It has been very helpful. A former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, supported the position I outlined during the weekend and that was also very important. However, I do not know for what his party stands at the moment.