Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome the opportunity afforded to us to speak on this crucial agreement. As the Minister of State is aware, Senators have been debating this agreement for quite some time on the Order of Business. Many of us have expressed strong views on why it should be approved. It is fortunate we have an opportunity to flesh it out in more detail.

The story is often told of the Kerryman - I am sure it was not Senator O'Toole - who, when asked for roadside directions, said, "If I was going there, I would not start from here." If we were to travel happily down the path to public sector reform and deal with some of the inherent and long running problems, we would prefer not to be starting from our current economic position. However, we are where we are and have to make the most of the opportunity presented to us. What the Minister of State said, what I have read about the Croke Park agreement, what is in the public arena and the document available to all union members ensure a fair and reasonable balance at this difficult economic juncture. We all wish the economic circumstances were different and better and that we did not have to take so much money out of the economy, but we have to recognise, as everybody does, we are living in perilous and difficult economic times.

The only political advantage the Government has over its predecessors when they attempted to turn around the economic ship of State is that there is, for the first time ever, a very clear public understanding of the scale of our economic plight. Economics was not a comfortable subject of discussion for most people in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald was mentioned. I am sure that when he was trying to explain the economic plight of the country in the late 1970s and early 1980s, what he said passed over most people's heads. There is now a much deeper and broader level of understanding. Therefore, the Government has an opportunity to introduce a much more realistic economic package.

The union leaders who negotiated the agreement, with the Minister of State's Department and the Government, must be congratulated for attempting to put together at this difficult time an arrangement which is as fair as it can be in the circumstances. On the whole, positive leadership has been shown by the majority of trade union leaders. They recognise, as we do, that times are extremely difficult and that we cannot allow the economy to go down the tubes or to happen in this country what is happening in other places across Europe. When one contrasts the reasoned and constructive performance of union leaders in recent times with the more extreme performance of those who marched on the streets to proclaim the right to work - many of whom have never created work for anybody - the route to consensus, dialogue and partnership is clearly the way forward. I, therefore, congratulate the union leadership on its approach to the Croke Park agreement.

The difficult economic times and difficult set of proposals, ironically, allow us at least to address the question of flexibility, reform and introducing new systems of management within the public sector. This is a debate which has been needed for some time. If there is some good in the current difficult economic environment it is that we might be in a position to bring about urgently needed reforms in the way we do our work across the public sector. We in this House and our colleagues in the other House could lead by example. Work practices in the political system and the business of politics urgently need to be reformed. In this way we could show some leadership. The public service, notwithstanding its huge record of constructive achievement in building our country and society over many decades, needs to demonstrate a new way of thinking and doing business and a more flexible approach.

I hope, as a result of the agreement which I hope will be passed, that we will be see the desired degree of movement and flexibility within the public sector which is urgently required. On that point, I agree with my colleagues who expressed their disappointment at what has been termed as a work to rule which is taking place in some Departments, whereby the queries and representations of public representatives are not, in the main, being dealt with. This is very unfair. We are making representations on behalf of citizens, workers and union members the length and breadth of the country and it is wrong that certain offices are refusing to deal with them. I know the Minister of State receives this complaint on a daily basis, but he should try to encourage the union leadership to resolve the issue because what is happening is grossly unfair, not just on public representatives but also on the people we serve. As Senator O'Toole said, where does one draw the line between a work to rule and something more akin to a mini-strike? It is disappointing and an issue which needs to be addressed.

I wish to revert briefly to the document before us, namely, the Croke Park agreement. While it is a difficult sell for workers across the public sector, including the many who have yet to vote, we have to keep repeating the message that in these difficult economic times which we will face for a number of years to come we must all work together in partnership. The old-fashioned partnership agreements which have served us well, commencing in 1987, need to be revised, updated, modernised and made more inclusive. Groups such as small business organisations who were excluded from the process - they were always very angry at being excluded - need to be part of the new dialogue.

The lesson of history, not just in this country but also across the globe, is that division does not work. We must, therefore, continue to work together. The breakdown of the talks last winter came as a great shock to some union leaders. Perhaps, however, it introduced a new sense of realism to the broader structure. It would be useful if, outside of the Croke Park agreement, the Minister of State and his Government colleagues, union leaders, employers and other interest groups considered putting in place a new structure to plan beyond the Croke Park agreement for a broader economic framework for the next decade. The new sense of realism in the country is unprecedented. Senator O'Toole has referred to union leaders and politicians who sometimes have to talk the talk and make a speech, yet we know the story is slightly different from what we are presenting. There is a sense of realism on all sides which gives us an opportunity to try to build a new partnership structure.

We will not make a decision in this House on the Croke Park agreement. I hope the tens of thousands of workers yet to vote will read the document carefully and recognise that, in their interests and that of their families, it represents a reasonable, fair and balanced attempt to deal with current economic difficulties in a fair fashion. I hope will be approved. We will have many opportunities in the House to continue the inter-party political debate and the blame game, but there is a bigger picture. I, therefore, recommend the agreement for its approval. Many in this House are more familiar than I am with the process of industrial relations. For the information of those not so familiar, clarifications such as those we issued are normal, especially when they relate to as complex and broad-ranging an agreement as this. Clarifications on the contents of the agreement serve to confirm the intention of the parties to it. They represent nothing more or less than that and represent no reshaping or changing of the substance of the draft agreement. They seek to provide an aid to understanding the agreement and will assist in the process of implementing the draft agreement should it be accepted in the current ballot.

One particularly important clarification sought by the unions relates to paragraph 1.28 of the draft agreement which states: "The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration". While similar clauses have applied in previous agreements, the events of the past two years - even of the past week - and the associated difficulties they have caused have heightened the concerns of all public servants. It is not envisaged on the basis of any currently known facts that the clause would be utilised. It is confirmed that in the event such a situation were to arise, the parties would meet at central level to discuss the specific circumstances that had arisen and the implications for the draft agreement prior to any decision being taken that would adversely affect the pay provisions of the agreement. The unions have made it clear that in the event of the Government invoking that provision, they will cease to be bound by the terms of the draft agreement. I believe I speak for Members on all sides of the House when I state that it is our profound hope that no such situation would arise. I draw attention to the positive economic circumstances beginning to take hold in the State as we debate this agreement. Adoption of the agreement will itself give a measure of certainty about policy and spending that will further add to the process of recovery that is taking hold.

Many have asked what is being asked of public servants in return. Simply put, they are being asked to be open to the type of flexibility and changes required to deliver improved services when resources are constrained and to contribute to the process of returning Ireland to economic growth and prosperity. Many of them have been open and in many sectors they have already changed their work practices over recent years, and I acknowledge that. The need for such change is more pressing now than ever before, however, especially for a more integrated public service that is leaner, more effective and more focused on the needs of citizens. In the context of reduced numbers and resources, the public service will have to be reorganised, and in that context public servants will need to show greater flexibility in working and mobility across traditional boundaries.

Under the agreement, public servants are being asked to agree to flexible redeployment within public service sectors and, where necessary, to bodies within the wider public service to facilitate Government decisions on rationalisation and restructuring. This commitment to flexible redeployment is a necessary corollary to another commitment the Government has given that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the public service. It reflects the need to ensure resources are directed where they are needed most, in line with the vision of a single flexible labour market and talent pool in the public service set out last year by the Government in its statement on transforming public services.

It is entirely understandable that people who have worked for a long time in one particular job or place will be concerned about their ability to change careers mid-stream and about the impact on their home and personal lives if they are required to start commuting substantial distances. Public servants should have those fears allayed in reading the agreement. It is anticipated that the majority of redeployments will take place within the relevant sector, as they have before, for example, moving civil servants from one Department to another. In certain cases, the most appropriate redeployment will be from one sector to another because that is where an appropriate vacancy is or that is the best way to deliver the service. The redeployment conditions and arrangements negotiated with the unions in the draft agreement set down very clear parameters on the issue. It specifically provides assurances that volunteers will be sought first, that necessary retraining will be provided and that reasonable daily commutes will be taken into account. Last week, we clarified that multiple redeployments are not envisaged. Obviously, long-standing differences in public service employment terms can also cause barriers to movement. The draft agreement commits both sides to review and revise contractual or other arrangements or practices which generate inflexibility or restrict mobility.

There are also specific commitments on changes in work practices in each sector to deliver savings and efficiencies necessary as the number of public servants falls. If we are to deliver the same or, it is hoped, improved services to the members of the public, we will have to change the way in which we deliver those services. Greater sharing of resources will be necessary, particularly in the areas of ICT, human resources, procurement and financial management. Public service management may also decide that the outsourcing of new or existing services is the appropriate approach. If this is the case, the agreement clarifies the steps that must be taken by management, including engaging with staff and their unions, before reaching such a conclusion where an existing service is concerned. In addition, although the numbers of public servants will fall over the coming years, some recruitment of necessary skills from outside the service will be required. At the same time, we will have to invest in improving the performance of serving public servants with significantly improved performance management across all public service areas and promotion based on performance as the norm.

If the agreement is adopted, there will still be very many issues to be discussed with public servants and negotiated with the trade unions. Public servants need have no fear of these discussions. As many on the public service management side have found out over the years, they are well served by their union negotiators and by people such as Senator O'Toole and many of his colleagues. A body designed to drive transformation across sectors will be established to help resolve disagreements and to verify independently the savings derived from the implementation of the sectoral agreements. To help ensure issues are resolved in a timely fashion, the agreement includes a fast-track and time-bound mechanism to resolve disputes arising out of the agreement which will bind both sides.

It is worth restating the fundamental point that it will be to the advantage of public servants that change is delivered because of the commitment to use savings in an agreed manner in the pay reviews. The Government is determined that public service management will have to meet the challenges posed to them by the transformation agenda and that they will be proactive and ambitious in, first, leading the implementation of the full range of transformation measures set out in the Croke Park agreement in facilitating the full participation of staff and their trade unions and, second, in seeking the early resolution of any problems arising through agreed third party mechanisms.

The agreement will ensure a stable industrial relations climate throughout the public service. The commitments to industrial peace and to no cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment during the agreement, which have been included in general agreements for decades, have a particular resonance now given the programme of industrial action by public service unions and their members since the beginning of this year. This was referred to by all speakers. While the right of employees to take industrial action can be acknowledged, this has to be tempered by an obligation to provide a service to citizens, representatives and the taxpayers who provide the resources to fund our public services. The Government and the unions acknowledged when entering into the discussions that a negotiated solution was preferable. All sides have since expressed the view that the agreement is the best that can be achieved by negotiation in the current economic and financial circumstances.

The agreement aims to provide a framework for public service pay determination until 2014, during which time we will continue to restore order to our public finances and reduce our deficit to less than 3% of gross domestic product. It also provides for the underpinnings for the implementation of the transformation agenda in a manner that recognises the employment rights of those who work in the public service and their reasonable expectations to be engaged in the process of creating and transforming a citizen-centred and performance-focused service. The best outcome for all sides is for the agreement to be adopted and for all sides to engage in delivering a better public service for all citizens.

I reiterate the Government's commitment to the deal and to the issues contained in the deal. I thank all Senators for their comments. It is regrettable the Labour Party has chosen not to participate in the debate. It is not fair to exploit the concerns of public servants on a range of issues and then refuse to comment either way on an agreement which seeks to address those concerns. I acknowledge Senator Twomey's remarks and his party's support for the agreement.