Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

On previous occasions that I spoke on the Croke Park agreement I compared it to the Lisbon treaty. I do so again because such a comparison provides a useful starting point. Those who are engaged in political life try to represent their communities and country. Sometimes certain decisions are made which are so important as to require political parties to take a step backwards and ask what is in the best interests of the country and what they should ask people to do to ensure the country is secure and has the potential to regain its prosperity. The choice facing trade unions and their members on the Croke Park arrangement is one such occasion.

While I have been critical of aspects of the trade union movement in recent years, I am a supporter of unions. Some of my family members belonged to trade unions and I would have joined a union in my previous occupation if the opportunity had been available. Trade unions play an invaluable role in achieving a balance between workers and employers. The union movement will have to shift its focus from the circumstances prevailing in specific workplaces to considering what is the correct course of action for all workplaces, unionised and non-unionised. The decision we are asking people to make on the Croke Park agreement is a case in point.

We must take a step back and evaluate the decision on the Croke Park agreement on the basis of current economic performance. Despite some stabilisation in tax receipts in recent months, estimated tax revenue for the year will be approximately €20 billion less than it was two or three years ago. Ireland is borrowing roughly €2 billion per month to fund the services upon which it depends. The national debt, a millstone around our necks which many of us believed would be managed down to a more reasonable level, is likely to reach €75 billion in the years ahead. This is the framework within which the decision on the Croke Park deal must be evaluated.

I have heard some people argue that political parties should not become involved in this matter. I take a different view. One of the shortcomings of social partnership is that political parties, especially those which are not fortunate to be in government, did not have a role in the Croke Park agreement. Given that the Fine Gael Party may be fortunate enough to be elected to government at the next general election, it is incumbent on my party to comment on the agreement and indicate what we will do if we form the next Government. My party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, highlighted areas of the deal which the Fine Gael Party would prefer to be different but argued that acceptance of the agreement would be in the best interests of the country. If my party forms the next Government, it will be charged with implementing at least the second half of the deal. We have a responsibility, therefore, to comment and have done so in a responsible manner by indicating that while not perfect, overall the agreement is in the best interests of the country.

Earlier this week, the Financial Times published an article by journalist Gillian Tett who frequently writes in the influential Lex column. The article focused on the reasons Ireland is perceived to be doing well in dealing with its current difficulties. Despite an unflattering headline, it was a very interesting piece. Ms Tett attributed the flexibility of Ireland to its social cohesion and stated that evidence shows people have been able to come together to make decisions in the overall best interests of the country. I hope she had in mind the position taken by most major political parties on the Lisbon treaty and the fact that, despite disagreement on how the financial adjustment programme must be delivered, the main Opposition parties recognise the need for the programme and agree on the figures involved. I hope also that Ms Tett considered the role played by many, albeit not all, trade union leaders in advocating and selling the Croke Park deal. These factors and a vote in favour of the Croke Park agreement will show to the rest of the world that the interests of workers are being served and protected.

We need to speak to the self-interest or, as some would say, enlightened self-interest of individuals. The Croke Park agreement is in the best interests of union members for three reasons which I ask those who are evaluating the agreement to bear in mind. First, if the deal is passed, the trade unions will stay at the table, an unlikely scenario if the deal is rejected. Irrespective of how people view the agreement, it affords trade unions an opportunity to speak directly to the Government. This is a prize of enormous value given that many trade unions have derived their power from their ability to negotiate directly with the Government.

Second, the agreement offers safeguards by providing a commitment that is not being extended to anyone else in society. Those who have had their unemployment benefit, carer's allowance or disability allowance cut and those in the private sector who have lost their jobs or had their hours or wages reduced have not been given the commitment offered to the workers covered by the deal. The trade unions which negotiated with the Government are doing everything in their power to give some form of guarantee to their members. Those who are outside the trade union movement are not fortunate enough to have such a guarantee.

The final point was made by the Minister of State when he noted 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." While this commitment is qualified by a degree of conditionality based on the possibility that it may be reviewed in light of unforeseen economic circumstances, it still gives scope to the trade unions to find a way to restore at least some of the pay cuts experienced by their members as the country returns to economic prosperity.

Having started my contribution by comparing the Croke Park agreement to the Lisbon treaty, I will conclude by making a comparison. The vote on the agreement and the decision on the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty differ in one respect. Having closely examined the reasons people voted against the Lisbon treaty, I found there was an expectation among some people that the referendum would be run again in the event that it was defeated. The Government was able to return to citizens with guarantees and clarifications because the external environment permitted it. The patience shown allowed the Government and political system to spend the best part of a year working through the arrangement. After what has happened in other European countries and after the decisions taken over the weekend by the European Council, we do not find ourselves in such a situation. If people vote "No" in the hope of securing an improved deal, we are not in an environment to facilitate change or to facilitate further negotiation. I wish that environment and flexibility existed because we all want to see people's wages and conditions improved. Above all else we want to see the 430,000 unemployed people back to work. We are dealing with an unprecedented environment and politicians have a responsibility to speak about this. Our party is doing so in a responsible manner and I ask people voting on this deal, which is not the kind of deal that many of them would want, to keep these points in mind.