Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy Dara Calleary, is welcome.

Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State and make a few points on the Croke Park agreement. To begin, it is important to acknowledge where we have come from in the past number of years and the difficulties we have had to sustain. No Government would in normal trading conditions set out to introduce the kinds of measures required over the past number of years to try to deal with the worst economic crisis to hit the world economy, not least here in Ireland. Over the course of that period, measures had to be introduced which have unquestionably reached into every household in the country and many families have endured very painful sacrifices in the form of reductions in pay and other cutbacks across the spectrum. There was no option other than such action and those measures have been welcomed both nationally by objective commentators and internationally.

The negotiators of the Croke Park agreement reached some weeks ago deserve our praise for their commitment to finding a solution in very difficult circumstances. This kind of agreement is not one that in better times the trade unions or employers would set out to agree. It has been necessary and I praise the leadership shown by the trade union movement and employers alike, as well as the office of Mr. Kieran Mulvey and Mr. Kevin Foley in the Labour Relations Commission, for the efforts in securing the deal.

The Croke Park agreement aims to provide a comprehensive agenda for public service transformation and a framework for public service pay determination over the next five years, during which the Government is fully committed to restoring order to the public finances and reducing the deficit to less than 3% of GDP. As a Senator on the Government side, one message I would like to get across is that there are no tricks in this agreement. There is no hidden agenda. I can understand difficulties that individual workers and trade unionists have had in accepting the kind of sacrifices that have become absolutely necessary but they can have absolute trust in the intentions of the Government to carry out its end of the bargain.

I note the comments from the Civil Public and Services Union, CPSU, yesterday and the fact the union voted against the agreement. It is worth noting that only 75% of the union membership voted and only 67% of that number voted against the deal. This shows that the kind of leadership which so many other trade unions have been showing is not shared by the leadership of that union in explaining the agreement and assuring the membership of the credibility of its contents. The draft agreement is the subject of balloting and we have seen significant leadership from the majority of the trade union heads. As they contemplate the contents of the agreement in the coming weeks, SIPTU and the larger part of the trade union movement are advocating support for the deal.

The agreement includes specific commitments on changes in work practices in each sector to deliver the savings and efficiencies required as the number of public servants falls. The Government has moved to clarify that savings derived from the implementation of the agreement will be used in a manner to be agreed to commence the process of addressing the effect on pay rates of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act (No. 1) 2009 and reducing the effect of the pension levy. The agreement provides for independent support to unions and management to cost and verify any savings arising from change. A body designed to drive transformation across sectors will be established to help resolve disagreements and to verify the savings from the sectoral agreements independently.

If the deal is ratified, the Government has committed to entering into the agreement with the full expectation of its terms being honoured. A significant deterioration of the economy is not envisaged, but it would not be prudent of any government during the current economic turbulence to make wholly unconditional commitments. Having said this, the Government is fully committed to upholding all aspects of agreements entered into given the economic circumstances of the day.

The trade unions have committed to flexible redeployment within the public service and, where necessary, to bodies within a geographical radius of approximately 50 km to facilitate Government decisions on rationalisation and restructuring. They have given specific commitments on changes in work practices in each sector to deliver the savings and efficiencies necessary as public servant numbers fall. They have committed to a more open recruitment of skilled individuals and significantly improved performance management across all areas, with promotion based on performance as the norm. They have committed to compliance with a fast-track and time-bound mechanism to resolve disputes arising out of the agreement and to the establishment of a body designed to drive transformation to help resolve disagreements and to verify independently the savings derived from the sectoral agreements. A commitment has also been given to industrial peace and to a null cost increase in claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment during the life of the agreement.

The Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, will go through the more detailed parts of the agreement, but I recognise fully that the agreement envisages what is a complete change of culture for many trade union members and workers. This will be difficult, but I praise their vision and their commitment to playing their part in turning the country around. Doing that will not be easy, but we have every chance of continuing to turn the corner given the type of leadership they have shown in the negotiations on the agreement.

Some commentators have supported the agreement. Senator O'Toole wrote an article in recent weeks. Without giving undue praise, it is fair to say that he was a pioneer of partnership in 1987 and has been a champion of workers' rights for the past 30 years. I praise his leadership in the context of his comments on this agreement. Importantly, he wrote: "The Croke Park deal on pay and reform is grim but a yes vote will keep the unions in an influential position". He also wrote: "The agreement, bad as it is, does offer hope, opportunity and influence." This is positive language at a time when such is required.

In recent days, Stephen Collins of The Irish Times wrote: "The Greek tragedy is a stark example of what can happen to a country if government and society do not face up to ingrained structural problems." I am glad to say that the larger part of the trade union movement and workers' representatives have faced up to these problems. I am also pleased to say that, under the leadership of the Taoiseach and, in particular, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, the reforms introduced and structural changes proposed show we are facing up to problems and taking the necessary steps.

Last week, the European Commission praised the measures taken by Ireland in the past two and a half years and asked that we continue to show leadership in areas where Greece and others have failed heretofore. In the interests of all European citizens, we hope that Greece will be able to lift the ball and do what we have done so well. European Commissioner Olli Rehn stated that Ireland's bold and credible measures are paying off. Thankfully, this is also being ensured by the leadership shown by the greater part of the trade union movement.

On 11 May, The Times read:

In the great Greek drama, there are few heroes, but any prize should go to Dublin. The Republic of Ireland has done a lot to get out of its own troubles, which were similar to those of Greece - worse, in a way, given that it has already had to rescue its banks. But with impressive agility and calm, the centre-right coalition led by the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, has managed big spending cuts.

This is due in no small way to the understanding nature and the realisation and acceptance of workers and every Irish person that, while we have needed to take difficult steps, they will pay off to the benefit of all.

While commending the agreement to the House and to all those contemplating their ballots in the coming weeks, I am concerned about the so-called work to rule still ongoing in the Passport Office, the Departments of Social Protection and Health and Children and the HSE. The legitimate and genuine concerns and representations of the people, as made through elected representatives, be they councillors, Senators or Deputies from all parties and none, are being actively put to the back of the queue. It is unacceptable that they are being ignored. What would James Connolly or Thomas Clarke think of someone who was prepared to take the money for a job but refused to do the work in line with his or her contract? This is not a work to rule. It is downright wrong and is not in the interests of the people. Will the Minister of State ensure some action is taken in this regard? It is not a question of us personally but of those we represent and the work that needs to be done on their behalf. We all have anecdotal evidence of passport requests made by people going on honeymoon or attending funerals not being handled. I know of a case in recent days in which a person's passport request was put to the back of the queue and another put to the front because the former came through an elected representative. This is wrong and we need to take the appropriate action.

Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paul Bradford:

I am advised that the Order of Business, as agreed by the House, was that the official party spokespersons would speak first followed by the Minister. Senator Boyle will possibly speak after the Minister of State. A list was provided.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, I thought the Green Party was included in that list of spokespersons.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Its spokesperson is not on the list I was given. I am advised that the Order of Business is as I have pronounced, but if a Member wishes to propose an amendment to allow for this, that is in order.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose an amendment to that effect.

Acting Chairman:

Is that agreed? Agreed. We will now hear from Deputy Boyle.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for having been made official.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is part of a centre right coalition, of which we heard earlier.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The importance of the Croke Park agreement at this point in the economic and political life of our country cannot be stressed highly enough. It is a long-term approach to addressing the series of difficulties in which we as a nation find ourselves. We must acknowledge the role played by trade union leaders who entered into this process despite an enormous set of difficulties that would have made it difficult for them, both in terms of their members and their instincts regarding the principles governing their unions, to proceed and progress this process.

It is also fair to acknowledge the degree of near political consensus that exists as to the importance of the Croke Park agreement. Senator O'Toole pointed out the responsible position that was taken by the Fine Gael Party and the remarks made by Deputy Quinn, whether in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Labour Party, are to be acknowledged. At the very least, there is no political party represented in either House of the Oireachtas that is using the Croke Park agreement as a political opportunity to ferment dissent and undermine what we as a country need to do economically over the next number of years.

At its heart this is a good agreement made at the most difficult of times. It addresses a number of the realities that exist, the fact that people within the public service have seen a dramatic reduction in income, the fact that there has been, of necessity, the introduction of a number of taxation instruments to help balance the nation's books and that the impact of these have been felt most markedly in the public sector.

Like Senator O'Toole, I take great encouragement from the process that has occurred in the CPSU, a union that represents the most lowly paid in the public sector. Despite there being a debate within that union that its members have suffered most, the fact that a significant number of them have agreed that the Croke Park agreement is worth proceeding with shows there is a degree of reality, responsibility and patriotism, which is not a word from which we should shy away at this time. There is agreement that we need to consider the set of circumstances that exists from the perspective of the nation and not from the perspective of the individual, sectors or that of party political gain. If we view the Croke Park agreement in those terms, we can emerge from the difficulties in which we find ourselves.

It is encouraging that we seem to be slowly coming out of a deflationary phase. It might seem ironic to welcome the renewal of inflation in our economy but the consumer price index figures published today show that prices reduced by 2.1%. We are in that area that Garret FitzGerald used to describe as the "decreasing of the rate of increase". That is to be welcomed because it points to our going in a particular direction.

The fact that we are in the middle of a process, that it should not be interfered with and that it should not be seen to be coerced in any way is something of which we need to be conscious in making these statements today. It is also helpful to voice appropriate words of encouragement. As Senator O'Toole said, we need to acknowledge the responsible way in which many trade union leaders have engaged with their members and argued a case that would have been difficult and unpopular for them in the current set of circumstances. If this agreement is to be approved, it can only be achieved because such people have entered into the process, have reached an agreement that would have been difficult to foresee a number of months ago and were prepared to sell it to people within the public sector who were not hospitable to receiving such a message. The fact that they were prepared to do that and that people in public sector unions were prepared to be persuaded by such an argument says something for the collective commitment that I believe will get us out of the number of economic crises with which we are currently dealing.

As a political system, we need to think of what other appropriate encouragements can be made to help that process along. Senator O'Toole spoke of the alternatives that exist, either the passing of this agreement or entering into a darker phase where there may be industrial unrest. Entering the phase of that second alternative is not what any of us would want because that would delay economic recovery and it would make it difficult to address in the shortest timeframe the losses in income and working conditions suffered by people in the public sector.

What is most attractive about this agreement is that it embodies lessons learned from previous agreements, even though such agreements served us well and brought about a very strong economy in the past. The methodology behind agreements such as benchmarking, in terms of the catch up pay rates between the public and the private sector not being mirrored in changes in how the public sector delivered services, is better catered for in this agreement. The changes occur, the savings are achieved and the reward is given. These circumstances have led us to consider how we should try to bring about public service reform. This probably is a better model. We need to consider how particular reforms can be introduced and what processes will help achieve them.

I am optimistic. I believe the agreement will be hard reached and narrow in its achievement. Significant large-scale unions have stated they are urging their members to support it. As I stated, the more negative unions have had within their organisations a debate that has been less than clearcut. There is debate taking place despite what we hear from more provocative commentators and a particular media agenda which states that the only way of dealing with the problems we have is by way of a direct expression of anger, where ever that might lead us. I do not believe this. The only way we can overcome our economic difficulties is by making the most of the processes that have worked in the past. We have been well served by social partnership. I believe those involved in social partnership representing workers' interests have been responsible. On those grounds, we should listen intently to the difficulties they describe and as a political system respond to those concerns while ensuring the sense of hurt, abandonment and anger is properly focused on bringing about a better economy and society. The Croke Park agreement is the best means of achieving this. Rather than engage in a traditional type of politics or in the type of industrial politics with which Senator O'Toole will be familiar, this is a time for people to come to a common understanding, speak with a single voice in regard to how we address these problems and to a shared acceptance that the burden of difficulties facing us will have to be fairly and appropriately shared. If these principles are evenly applied, we can have a good agreement which will the basis of a better society, which will be the responsibility not alone of this Government but of future Governments during the next ten years.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Seanad debate on the draft Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, now colloquially known as the Croke Park agreement.

The making of this agreement between the public service committee of ICTU and the Government is a key step in addressing the immediate fiscal and economic challenges facing the country. A vote in its favour would show our European partners, and those watching around the world, that we are facing our problems and setting about putting our house in order. The Croke Park agreement is broader than this. It is a framework for changing how we deliver our public services to ensure they are delivered efficiently, with high productivity and the flexibility expected by the citizens of a modern state. Despite its origins during one of the most difficult times for Ireland since its independence, the agenda it sets for public servants is positive. As acknowledged by Senator O'Toole, it will ensure they are engaged in the design and delivery of the future public service.

The Senator also stated the agreement may not - I know it does not - live up to everyone's expectations but it is important that all public servants currently considering what way they will vote on this agreement stand back and coolly and calmly make that decision based on the merits of the agreement and the associated clarifications. The Croke Park agreement is shaped by current economic circumstances. Our public finances and tax receipts continue to be severely impacted by the sharp deterioration in the economic environment. Tax revenue in 2010 is expected to be in the region of €31 billion, back to 2003 levels. Since this time, gross voted current expenditure has grown by approximately 65%. Budget 2010 forecast the stabilisation of the deficit in 2010, notwithstanding declining economic activity, and set out a path to reduce that deficit to under 3% of GDP by 2014. During the period 2011-14 it is expected that growth will return to the economy on an annual basis and that growth in tax revenues will resume. While there continues to be a significant degree of uncertainty about economic developments, there is mounting evidence that the economy is beginning to stabilise. Consumer sentiment is improving, car sales have increased, while surveys of manufacturing and services firms confirm we are moving in the right direction. The expected pick-up in tax revenues based on existing policies would not bridge the significant gap that has emerged in the public finances and further adjustments in the fiscal position are required during the period to 2014 to restore the public finances to a sustainable position.

As a major element of public spending it was inevitable that the public service pay bill would be part of the far-reaching fiscal consolidation undertaken to date. I acknowledge that public servants have during the past two years made a significant contribution to the recovery of the economy. I also acknowledge the hardship placed on them. It is estimated that more than €3 billion has been saved from the potential pay and pensions bill through a combination of non-payment of the increases under the terms of the Towards 2016 Review and Transitional Agreement,the application of the general moratorium on recruitment and promotion along with the incentivised early retirement and career break schemes, the pensions related deduction which averaged almost 7% and the reductions in pay and allowances applied from January 2010. The Government, through the draft agreement, has acknowledged that substantial contribution and has given a commitment that there will be no further reductions in the pay rates of serving public servants during the lifetime of the agreement, if adopted. There will be a review of the pay of public servants in spring 2011 in advance of the statutory date of 30 June 2011 specified in the two Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Actspassed in 2009, and annually thereafter. The Government has also given a commitment to use sustainable and verifiable savings generated from the implementation of the agreement to commence the process of addressing the effect of those Acts on pay rates. In the event of sufficient savings being identified in the spring 2011 review, priority will be given to lower paid public servants. In the event that sufficient savings are made, this does not prevent staff with salaries in excess of €35,000 from benefiting from this initial or subsequent yearly reviews.

I want to highlight the positive commitments on pay, in light, in particular, of the sacrifices made by public servants during the past 18 months. The application of the pension levy and the pay reductions have impacted on the daily lives of all public servants, including those in this House. The Croke Park agreement acknowledges those sacrifices and seeks to give to public servants a measure of security and reassurance in regard to their finances during the lifetime of the agreement. Public servants should pay careful attention to the reassurances on pension arrangements as given in the agreement. The agreement proposes to extend by one year the period for which the January 2010 pay reductions will be disregarded for the purposes of calculating public service pension entitlements. This extension is permitted under the financial emergency measures legislation passed by this House late last year, which effected the pay reductions.

A separate process of engagement between the Department of Finance and the trade union representatives is underway to discuss pension scheme arrangements for new public servants, which will be introduced before the end of 2010. This process is independent of the terms of the draft agreement and was in place prior to the engagements which produced the draft agreement. As an aside, I take this opportunity to set out the nature of the clarifications on the agreement issued by the Labour Relations Commission. I take this opportunity to thank once again Mr. Kevin Foley, Mr. Kieran Mulvey, their staff at the Labour Relations Commission and all of those officials from Government and the union side who engaged in the discussions which led to the agreement. In particular, I pay tribute to those trade union officials who have stuck to the agreement they negotiated and who despite difficulties within their organisations have continued to support and endorse it and to sell it to their members.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share my time with Senator Butler.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like all other speakers, I pay tribute to our fine public service on the quality of the service we receive and its achievements. It has been of benefit in growing the economy.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share my time with Senator Butler.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like all other speakers, I pay tribute to our fine public service on the quality of the service we receive and its achievements. It has been of benefit in growing the economy.

There is a fine contrast between what is happening in other countries in Europe and what is happening in Ireland where one sees a balanced, reasoned and responsible position being taken by many of the unions.

It was never the case that there would only be upward benchmarking. That was never feasible. I am conscious of the fact that during the good times, some of the pay increases were very significant. I am aware of one case where a person received a 13% increase in wages in one year between benchmarking, the national pay agreement and an increment.

Everybody has contributed to the recent deductions which were mandatory and necessary to get our public finances in order. It surprises me to hear some people complain as if it was something the Government wished to do rather than it being a case of necessity. We do not work or live in a vacuum. We have a very open economy which suffered significantly during the downturn.

It also surprises me to hear certain people ask where the money went. People who can rationalise and work through very complex issues at times seem to be very simplistic in their views on economics. When the money was available, it was paid out from the public purse. It was given in tax relief.

There is this idea that developers have pots of gold which are untouchable. Over the past year to year and a half, we have seen this is not the case. To put it succinctly, where liabilities exceed assets, assets are being sold. The courts have been very strong and have even taken pensions and homes and have ensured all assets are accounted for and sold off. No one is escaping. It has been suggested that people who benefited from the good times are not now paying their way. That simply has not happened.

At one stage, Senator O'Toole quite rightly said the wage agreements were like an ATM. We paid ourselves particularly well. Even this agreement pushes the barrier. The Government has been very forthcoming, straightforward and generous in the proposals, given our fiscal situation. However, it has been proved right. The amount of growth in the economy and the positive steps we have seen in the first quarter of this year and which will be improved on - there is an expected growth rate of 3% in 2011 - indicate that this will be a very manageable agreement. An important point which has been lost is that upward benchmarking will occur as soon as the situation allows. We are all working together.

In regard to those who are still uncertain about the Croke Park agreement, a poll was taken in my local newspaper in County Tipperary on the agreement. The mood among the public is that the Croke Park agreement should be accepted. Some 91% said it should be accepted while 9% said it should not be, although I know it was unscientific and a telephone poll. I suggest that, to a large extent, that 91% reflects the strong support for the Croke Park agreement.

This is the second time Fine Gael has put the country before party politics. It has come on board and has quite clearly said this agreement is worth supporting, which it is. It begs the question as to what the Labour Party thinks it is doing putting party politics before the good of the country for the second time. When we needed to underpin the banks and introduce the bank guarantee, it was strongly opposed by states in Europe. Notwithstanding that, those very states implemented the very policies we proposed. Unfortunately, the Labour Party did not support what was necessary and right at the time and it is not doing so now. Unfortunately, it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth, as it were. The party leader, Deputy Gilmore, said he will not give a view on the agreement while the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, suggested that it is worthy of support.

Larry Butler (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not be the most supportive of unions. I was an employer and always prided myself on paying more than the union rates. If somebody had a beef with me, I would say that he or she might like to work for some company with union rates. It was never an argument with me because I always paid more than the union rates.

Social partnership was quite a good idea but I disagreed with parts of it. The social partnership model is no longer appropriate. Given the reality in which we find ourselves where we must compete in world markets with a reduced demand for our goods, we must find a more flexible approach to ensuring we deliver services. One of the most important services any country can deliver is the public service.

Those in the public service in this country are fantastic. Since I became a Member of this House and as a member of a local authority for 19 years, I have found public servants to be fantastic people who are really dedicated to what they do. This is a good opportunity for the public service to show itself in a good and patriotic light. We need to work together to come out of this downturn in the economy. As Senator Hanafin stated, when money was available, the Government was quite generous in ensuring everyone was quite well paid and perhaps, in many cases, too well paid.

Senator O'Toole is an outstanding contributor in this House and is also very sensible when it comes to discussions on unions and employers as he has much experience in that regard. It was very interesting to hear him condemn the public service on the approach it has taken to public representatives who are doing a good job and are trying to help their constituents. It is a shame to see work not being handled properly.

There are other ways for the public service to protest. This method of protest is not serving the public service well and shows it in a bad light. When I telephone a public servant to ask that something is done, the public servant tells me he or she will not handle it. I must get back to the constituent to say it cannot be done because the public servant will not handle it. The question then asked is whether these people are being paid. Of course, they are being paid.

It is very honourable to go out on strike if one must but one must do one's job if one is being paid. We must move on from strikes because they do not work anymore. People on strike will find themselves in very difficult situations. Mortgages and bills must be paid so withdrawing labour totally is no longer a sensible approach for any union to take.

I support the Croke Park agreement. The categoric assurances the Government has given on job protection and the security of pensions for the next four years would not be provided in any other workplace.

Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Fiona O'Malley (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share my time with Senator O'Sullivan.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Fiona O'Malley (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Donohoe has been as eloquent as ever, and has highlighted exactly what is good about this agreement. He has also highlighted its importance, and this is a very important moment for our country. Senator O'Toole made the point that people should try to park any annoyance with the Government because this is about the future of our nation and opportunities for our children. That is why I applaud the position of the Fine Gael Party and why I am disgusted by the position of the Labour Party.

The leader of the Labour Party recently accused the Taoiseach of economic treason in the Dáil. He is fine with his nice words and eloquent statements but what does he think he is doing? This is where true leadership is to be shown and is demanded. If that man purports to lead this country or any future Government and yet has not got the courage to come off the fence and decide in the best interests of the country, then we should be very worried. I believe the Fine Gael members need to be worried as well because this is-----

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the Senator was offering herself.

Fiona O'Malley (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am available.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not what we hear.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No interruptions, please.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thought the Progressive Democrats expired.

Fiona O'Malley (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is one of the most important decisions that members of unions will make about the future of their country. The agreement asks people to do the honourable thing. A colleague of mine in the Oireachtas told me yesterday that his daughter joined the public service many years ago on modest wages and was offered twice the salary elsewhere but declined to take it because she was interested in secure employment. She left aside the opportunity to double her income because she wanted to invest in security. She has since seen a pay decrease and a pension levy imposed. Everyone in the private sector thinks that public servants have it cushy but that really brought home to me how people in the public service are hurting and how rightly annoyed they are with the Government about this issue. I would put it to them, however, that the Government had no option and has no option.

Part of the reason there is a beginning of an economic recovery is because the Government took those harsh decisions and because people on modest incomes, especially those in the public service, made the sacrifices. The Minister used those words in his speech and I do not think the Government has forgotten the sacrifice the public sector has made. People from the banking community were living it up and they have ruined the country. It is no wonder public service workers are annoyed about this given that they are carrying the burden of these mistakes. That is a matter of governance, however, and the way to deal with it is at the ballot box. I applaud Fine Gael members for coming on board on this issue because they know it is important for the country.

The political leadership of the Labour Party must be called into question. They have clearly demonstrated that they are incapable of standing up to vested interests, and we need to remember that. It is easy to toe the populist line and it is impressive that the union leaders have told the truth, namely, that this is not a great deal but it is the best deal that can be negotiated. Senator Donohoe highlighted why it is important. Apart from the job security element, there is great importance attached to being present at the table and having influence on decisions that will be made.

The Minister stated that the implementation of this agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration. This caused concern and clarification was needed. The Minister indicated that it is not envisaged that there will be any such circumstances. If this clause has to be brought in, the best place to be at that moment is around the table making the decisions on how to solve the problem. It is better that the transformation agenda be communicated rather than imposed.

The public service gets kicked around quite a bit, as it were. We are not proud enough of our public service. I heard a story recently by a well-known journalist who was talking to a friend of a friend of mine who had heard from two other journalists who were commissioned by the public service broadcaster, RTE, to carry out an investigation into changes in the health service since the HSE was established. They carried out their research and they found out that the HSE was working well. They were public servants themselves and were proud of our public service. They discussed the making of the programme with the commissioners from RTE but the commissioners did not want to know about it. That is a shame. Public servants are entitled to be proud of good service and are entitled to know that changes made are reported. I would like to think that RTE would have the courage to commission those two journalists to make that programme and show that we have a public service that is working. People should know there is positive change within the public service.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very grateful to Senator O'Malley for allowing me speak. I would like to make one or two quick contributions. The Chinese say: "May you live in interesting times." A racehorse won the Grand National in the 1950s that was called Quare Times. We are in "quare times" when Fine Gael, for its involvement, get great praise from this side of the House. I have no doubt that Senator Buttimer will warmly reciprocate when he gets up to speak. For two years we have had incredible financial chaos worldwide. It is a crisis that nobody predicted, even though most of the political and media commentators are doing verbal gymnastics to give the impression that they knew about it all along and that they had told us. The reality is that they did not know; nobody told us about it. It is how we are handling it that is starting to make the headlines because some of the media commentators who pilloried the Government and the Taoiseach, in particular, are all of a sudden starting to herald the end of the recession and realise that we are getting international recognition for the way in which the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Government in general have dealt with the crisis. We are in interesting and quare times. Without being too political about it, when we have the luxury of reflecting on what has happened here in the past two years, there will be a serious reappraisal of the role of the Taoiseach in how he faced up to the unprecedented challenges that confronted him.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator lost us there.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No interruptions, please.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not interrupt the Senator, even though I am tempted.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is stretching the bounds of credibility.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Buttimer should be reading his history. I recently read two biographies, one on President Abraham Lincoln and the other on President Harry Truman.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is not either of them.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During their terms of office they were extremely unpopular. If there had been opinion polls then, President Lincoln would have had a rating of approximately 10%. President Truman was declared defeated in an election he had won resoundingly.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to stop the Senator, but his time is up.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those who are writing the political obituary of my party have done so too soon. A different song will be sung in the next two years when the people will have a chance to show whether they appreciate the measures taken. The medicine is tough, but I think they will appreciate the medicine was good for them.

Returning to the point we are supposed to be discussing on the trade union issue, I praise the trade union movement. When I was a teacher, I was proud to be a trade union activist. I say to people like Mr. Peter McLoone, Mr. Jack O'Connor and Mr. David Begg that they have done the right thing in giving leadership. I believe their members will take their lead. Ms Sheila Noonan, general secretary of the INTO, the union of which I was proud to be a member, said the agreement-----

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is over time.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will only take 30 seconds. You will not let a Kerryman down. She said the agreement was giving her members security in times of unprecedented economic chaos. Another Kerryman, Senator O'Toole, has been rightly praised for the patriotic role he has adopted. The INTO was the first of the teacher unions to propose approval of the agreement. When the dust has settled, they will reflect on that decision with great satisfaction when economic recovery becomes a reality.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I have listened with great interest to many fine speeches on this topic this afternoon. I pay particular tribute to Senator Donohoe for his very fine exposition on the subject.

What appears to be the elephant in the room is really the mouse that is the Labour Party. This is really surprising. I understood Deputy Gilmore's line was that he did not want to tell people how to vote, but that is really a code for not taking what might be perceived in some quarters as an unpopular leadership position. It is not enough for Deputy Gilmore to send or allow out the sensible people in his party, including Deputy Quinn, who outlined his position on the Croke Park agreement in no uncertain terms, but to hold himself back, particularly at a time when people are looking to him for leadership. I am from the same parish as Deputy Gilmore and it is widely accepted that he is a very fine public representative. He is very eloquent and enjoys particular popularity. However, it is not acceptable for him to seek to maintain that popularity at the price of his responsibilities on an issue as important as this. It is important that leaders of political groups who in all likelihood will be in government in coming years state clearly what they believe people ought to do. That is not telling people what to do or believe. It is advising them what in their best estimate ought to be done.

Herbert Swope said: "I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: which is: Try to please everybody." We heard reference to various American Presidents. It was the wife of an American President, Rosalynn Carter, who said: "A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be." In that context, the silence of the leader of the Labour Party and, more significantly, the absence of the Labour Party holus-bolus from this Chamber in discussing this important topic is deeply to be regretted.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am advised the Senator is not allowed to refer to people who are not in the Chamber.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me rephrase by saying I look forward to hearing the contributions of the Labour Party Members whom I have not yet heard.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps we should take a more charitable view of their silence. I know the Minister of State is an historian and no doubt he will have appreciated Robert Bolt's screenplay for A Man for All Seasons. We should perhaps take a more charitable view of the silence of the Labour Party in the light of the exchanges between Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell, in putting it to Sir Thomas More that his silence was an eloquent denial of the king's title, gave the example of taking a dagger from his sleeve. The exchange was as follows:

Cromwell: Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?

Crowd in court gallery: No!

Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Although it is not specifically relevant, I shall share the remaining portion with the House:

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Senators will forgive that brief tangent at the end. I hope, however, they will not think that in its entirety it was a tangent. Perhaps we should take the charitable view and believe the Labour Party's silence thus far, in fact, betokens consent to the provisions of the Croke Park agreement. That would also be the view to be taken in the light of Senator O'Toole's comments on the vote of the Civil Public and Services Union. He pointed out that as 74% had voted and that two thirds had voted against it, therefore, just less than half of its membership had voted against it. We might assume that those who did not vote also consent to the agreement. Whether that is to be too optimistic or to stretch it too far, it would be better to interpret the 26% who did not vote as consenting to the provisions of the agreement. Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the best deal in town.

At this time we need to be united and realistic. If we did not know the consequences of disunity before the events in Greece took place, we certainly know them now.

Last week I spoke to an American tourist who told me how her work life as a public relations executive in the private sector had changed in the past year or so. Instead of there being two people to handle the set of accounts, she now must deal with all of them, a situation that has major implications for her free time. However, she is glad to have her job. That is the reality.

There are items in this agreement which might have shocked people a number of years ago but we cannot afford to ignore the positives. These include the guarantee that there will be no further cuts in public service pay for serving public servants and that as soon as there are sustainable and verifiable savings, we will look at the impact the pay cuts have had and, in so doing, will focus first and foremost on the lower paid. That is extremely desirable. There is the guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies. It is right and proper and to be welcomed that the quid pro quo will be an examination of work practices and flexibility within the provision of services in the public service and an openness to redeployment in other areas of the public service or in defined related areas. Again, there is balance in that matters such as commuting will be taken into account.

What runs through this agreement and is reflected in the consensus responses of people such as Senator O'Toole and in the support of the main Opposition party, which, rightly and commendably, chose not to play politics with this but to act and vote in the national interest, is the desire for fairness at its heart. There is an acceptance that pain cannot be avoided and a taking on board that what seems to be unjust in the short term must be tolerated. There is fairness too, reflected in the issues I mentioned, the minimisation of further cuts and pain to people in the public service, a recognition of our moral duty at the first opportunity to look at the impact of the pay cuts and to try and make such recompense as will be possible, especially for the lower paid.

Mar sin, deirim arís go bhfuil an-bhrón orm nár chuala mé go fóill ó Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go dtiocfadh an ceannaireacht caoi uathu ionas go léireofaí nach bhfuil ach bealach amháin chun déileáil leis an ngéarchéim ina bhfuilimid. Is é an bealach sin ná glacadh leis an chomhaontas agus dul ar aghaidh ón bpointe seo. Is fiú freisin smaoineamh ar an ngealltanas atá anseo nach ndéanfaí breis ciorraithe ar dhaoine agus, nuair a bheidh airgead le spáráil, go gcuirfí súil athuair ar an gcaoi inar féidir linn cúiteamh a thabhairt do dhaoine, go háirithe iad siúd ar na tuarastail is lú.

Mark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was very struck some months ago when I heard the French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, on the Sunday news programme on RTE radio speaking about what she perceived to be the solidarity that existed within Irish life. She said it was our defining characteristic which spared us the kind of pain and turmoil the Greeks were experiencing. I was taken aback by this because at that stage my experience was that solidarity was in short supply. I was somewhat reassured and perhaps a little puzzled that such an outside opinion existed. I was encouraged because I thought solidarity was in great danger at that stage. I say that as one who worked in the private sector, who employs people and who saw the canyon that had opened up between private and public sector workers. It was as if we were working in separate economies. It was most disheartening and insidious in that it could have brought us all to a sorry end.

To see the Croke Park deal in the context of restoring solidarity is something I greatly welcome and support. Words such as "noble" have been used to describe the position taken by union leaders in regard to the negotiations and their recommendations to their members. I would go a little further and say there is something of the heroic in how some of the senior negotiators deported themselves knowing they were bringing on themselves a huge degree of anger. I expect to experience that for myself on Monday next when I meet the trades council in Dundalk. I fully expect to hear that anger but at least I will hear it in the context of a properly constituted meeting where there will be a fair exchange of views. I am happy to be the object of that anger and will defend the deal as the best one available. I will defend it as balanced and as the basis for a recalibration of partnership which I believe it can be.

Again, as one who experienced the loss of competitiveness in the economy in recent years, as the local government charges I was paying increased and as wage inflation drove consumer goods inflation, and so on, I could feel the draining away of my ability to compete, proximate as I am to another economy just over the Border. I experienced a great sense of relief when I read the Croke Park deal because I see it as the basis on which partnership can begin to serve all the country again, not only the constituent parts. I believe it lost its way in the latter end and contributed to the competitiveness issues that have bedevilled us.

Some weeks ago, Garret FitzGerald wrote that with all the turmoil going on the big gain has been underplayed, namely, the regaining of competitiveness. I agree with that. This has not been aired sufficiently. It is the prize because it is what will underpin economic recovery and create the basis on which we can begin to put in place all the new economic initiatives and strategies that have been knocking around on paper for too long without actually happening. These can succeed only in the context of a competitive economy.

The other day I moved into a new office on the sixth floor, having been a bit of a-----

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nomad.

Mark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----nomad for the past month, since my arrival. I was enjoying my new surroundings when I noticed a sticker on a window across the courtyard saying: "Don't blame me - I voted Labour". That bumper sticker was clearly a back reference to the local elections or the last general election. The Labour Party should be aware there will be the father and mother of a blame game if this deal is not approved by a majority of public sector workers. Much of the blame will focus on the party's relative silence and non-participation in this debate. It has created a smokescreen for itself and does not want to tell people what to do. I urge Deputy Gilmore to reconsider that position because it will be a close thing and it will need all available support to get it across the line. It is profoundly in the national interest that the deal be approved and that the international opinion concerning our solidarity to which I referred, and to which Senator Donohoe referred in the Financial Times today, is reinforced, not shattered.

We have come a long way from the December breakdown and I am very anxious to see the deal completed. I say this against the background of the most recent vote of the Civil and Public Services Union, CPSU, members. I heard the union leader, Mr. Blair Horan, speak about it on the radio this morning and he attributed the defeat to lower paid workers not trusting the Government on the issue. He expressed the view concisely and I took account of it.

The response of the Minister of State today also takes account of the issue. He mentioned paragraph 1.28 of the draft agreement, which states that the implementation of the agreement "is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration". That will be seen by anyone on the other side as a get-out clause but it is also a necessary precaution. Over a number of years and in fluid economic circumstances, agreements must have conditions attached taking into account a breakdown of economic order that would prevent the deal from being delivered.

I can understand how a line like this might create a high degree of unease and suspicion among union members voting on the deal. The Minister of State's response to that trust issue is important. It is not envisaged, on the basis of any currently known facts, that the clause would be utilised. I speak for Members on all sides of the House in saying that it is our profound hope that no such scenario would arise. The language is self-evident and it is only in extremis that such a clause would be called upon. As we begin to see some signs of economic improvement, the possibility of such a position is receding by the day. I hope the response from the Minister of State will be noted by the unions in general and Mr. Blair Horan in particular as a statement of good faith in the deal. Although the clause had to be included, it is not something anyone wants to use.

The kind of posturing and calls for demonstrations of anger we have seen are unhelpful in our current position. Most people, even those experiencing the sharp end of the deal, will see that there is no advantage in open aggression or the kind of activities we saw outside the gates of Leinster House some days ago. That will not help people to rationally assess their enlightened self-interest or vote in the national interest. It will stoke resentment and rupture the solidarity I have spoken about. It will create another "us and them" scenario that we came close to but have since moved away from. It will ultimately lead to the failure of the deal despite the lack of a fall-back position. That will lead to industrial chaos which should be avoided at all costs. I thank the Minister of State for his time.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Notwithstanding the comments of Senators O'Sullivan and O'Malley, I feel constrained on this side of the House. I am a member of the ASTI and a proud advocate of the public sector worker. It is important to put this debate in context and it is an equal imperative that we have the debate. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, Deputy Mansergh, who has a good record of attendance in the Seanad and has the interests of this House in mind. He participates in and listens to debates and I commend him on doing so.

Prior to the conclusion of the UK general election, it was stated in the Financial Times that: "The next government will have to cut public sector pay, freeze benefits, slash jobs, abolish a range of welfare entitlements and take the axe to programmes such as school building and road maintenance". That sounds familiar as that is what has been done in this country. Writing in The New York Times, Thomas Friedman coined a great phrase which I used yesterday on the Order of Business and I will use again today. He stated that it is: "Goodbye Tooth Fairy politics, hello Root Canal politics".

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I attended a dentist's office earlier this week.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are in an era of root canal politics, which is unfortunate. I and other Fine Gael members have said publicly that the deal should be carried and there is a duty on all of us as politicians and as members of unions or former public sector workers to support the deal. There is no better alternative. Albert Camus spoke about the herd mentality and I appeal to the ordinary public sector worker not to follow the herd and vote against the deal. Such workers should wait for the general election to give Fianna Fáil and the Green Party the bloody nose they deserve.

Senator Harris spoke previously about history and how we should not reflect on past events. It is nevertheless important to consider that it was the policies and financial mishandling in this country by one major party - Fianna Fáil - that led us to our current position. The Minister of State and other Senators will speak about Lehman Brothers and the global recession but the reality is the policies pursued by the likes of Charlie McCreevy, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen have been the main driver of our economic collapse.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State knows from his daily work in south Tipperary that people feel they are under siege. They are terrorised by Government policies. We can trot out the usual argument on NAMA and the bailing out of banks but the public sector worker feels unrecognised, devalued and worthless because of budgets, punditry and the pronouncements of Government. Walking into any staff room or canteen in a hospital or any other public sector building, one can see that morale is low and needs to be helped.

This Government is incapable of restoring the trust and confidence of the people, which has been broken. The political leadership of Enda Kenny and Richard Bruton on benchmarking involved talking to ordinary people. On the Order of Business I made a suggestion at which Senator Mooney took umbrage. I argued it was time for the Minister for Finance to go before the people to make a state of the nation broadcast and tell them the unvarnished truth. The people want to hear the truth rather than spin or lies. They want plain and honest-to-God facts. As Senator Bradford mentioned, turning the economy around will require a different set of people and policies.

I knock on doors four nights a week. Three common questions I hear are "Where are the jobs?", "When will the cuts end?" and "When will we recognise the importance of people?"

Public sector workers have an opportunity to place their self-interest with the national interest. No matter how imperfect, this pay deal can help to stabilise the economy and get this nation off the bottom rung of the ladder and back up to the premiership in some shape or form.

Many of us in politics despise the comments by certain pundits who claim a knowledge of everything and to have every answer. They fail to recognise that ordinary, decent people are under pressure. We have all met public sector workers in our daily work as politicians. A few nights ago, I met a schoolteacher who had been forced into giving grinds, not because he wanted to but because he needed to maintain the lifestyle of his children and wife. Ten years ago, teaching was seen as a great job. Today, nurses, teachers, gardaí and prison officers among other low-paid public sector workers I could name are applying for family income supplement payments and are under considerable pressure. I hope this deal is passed. If so, the Government will have a responsibility to spread the burden equitably and fairly, which it has not done to date.

I commend Mr. David Begg and Senator O'Toole on their leadership in this debate. I trust Mr. Begg's judgment and the manner in which he does business. Like Deputy Kenny, he is a man with a vision of an Ireland that is fair, just and based upon valuing work. This is what we must aspire to and espouse. I do not blame people for being angry because it is justifiable, but the opportunity to show it is at the ballot box where they can put Fianna Fáil out of power. Senator O'Sullivan commented on how the Taoiseach would be recognised in years to come, but I do not share his opinion. Those in the Fianna Fáil Party, especially the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, will be recognised as the architects of Ireland's disastrous downfall.

SIPTU has taken a strong stand. I noted the words of Mr. Jack O'Connor who suggested that perhaps we should not comment on the matter. I disagree with him although I respect his opinion and his ability to lead his members. We must not allow ourselves to become another Greece. Reference was made to last Tuesday's protest outside Leinster House. I support people's right to protest and strike but we must have a sense of realism and put matters in perspective. Let us have a real debate. I have a fundamental difficulty with some of the punditry that is shown on television and written down. We must get value for money and create efficiencies in the public sector. Above all, we must give people hope and create and provide for jobs.

I will conclude by referring to Thomas L. Friedman's op-ed piece in The New York Times. The tooth fairy may be dead, but those of us in leadership in politics have a role to play. Politics is about bringing people with us and giving hope. That is what the Fine Gael Party is about. This deal is far from perfect but it gives people an opportunity to regroup and Ireland an opportunity to regenerate.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We live in difficult times. It is somewhat regrettable that the Civil Public and Services Union, CPSU, has become the first union to reject the Croke Park pay and reform agreement. The CPSU, which represents approximately 13,000 lower paid civil servants, voted against the proposals recently by 2:1. Two other Civil Service unions, the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, AHCPS, and the Public Service Executive Union, PSEU, backed the agreement last week. Further ballot results from individual unions are expected in the coming weeks, although the final verdict of the public service unions might not be known until mid-June when the two largest unions, IMPACT and SIPTU, complete their ballots.

That the CPSU is leading the "No" side is regrettable. Some weeks ago, several colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party and I had the privilege of spending some time with Mr. Blair Horan, the CPSU's general secretary, who was directly involved in the Croke Park negotiations. I have always found him a voice of moderation in the trade union movement. I have had the pleasure of listening to him many times as he represented his union and the wider trade union movement as a member of the National Forum on Europe which, sadly, is no longer with us. That is a pity given the current climate in which there is much debate about our level of integration in the European model. The forum served a useful cause. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, was another member of the forum and made important contributions during its time.

I took two things away from our meeting with Mr. Horan. First, he believed his union executive would probably recommend acceptance. Second, he saw the recommendations in the Croke Park agreement as a significant advance for lower paid Civil Service workers who are represented by his union and an element of whom was involved in the Passport Office dispute. I asked him whether he believed that the larger unions had dumped on his union during the good years of benchmarking and that the pay gap between lower and medium to higher paid civil servants had widened to such an extent that his members believed they had no choice but to engage in industrial action. I sympathise with them. Like many Senators and others have done, if one followed the debate on the industrial action, it would have become apparent that many people working in the passport and social welfare offices were dealing with members of the public who were earning more money than them. It was ironic and sad, to some degree, that civil servants in the Department of Social and Family Affairs were giving out State money to people who were earning more money than them in their weekly wages. Of course they are angry and I empathise with them.

It is regrettable that the significant advance mentioned to us by Mr. Horan that afternoon does not seem to have convinced his union's broader membership to accept the deal. As he stated, the other unions agreed that the lower paid would be the first to benefit when the economy turned around. The signs of that turnaround exist and no one, not even the gainsayers, can deny the economic indicators coming not just from the Government but also from independent commentators. For all that, his members have rejected the deal. Mr. Horan has been quoted as saying the CPSU will wait to see what the other unions will do before taking a decision on where to go next. Not for the first time, he mentioned his belief that the deal can be renegotiated. It cannot. The strong message from the Government and the larger Civil Service unions is that what is on the tin is what people will get. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's position on the agreement.

I do not wish to focus exclusively on Mr. Blair Horan and his union. It is, however, significant that the CPSU is the first union to reject the agreement. The members of the CPSU are the very workers the Government, in the form of the Croke Park agreement, is striving to assist. It is these individuals who have suffered the most. In such circumstances, it is regrettable that they have rejected the agreement.

It is a matter of concern that following 23 years of social partnership, trade unions entered the second decade of the 21st century in a seriously weakened position, with union employee density down to 31% compared to a density high point of 62% in the early 1980s prior to the series of seven corporatist social pacts. Union penetration is highly imbalanced, with a density approaching 80% in the public sector and approximately 20% in the larger private sector. Union members are now more likely to be over 45 years, married with children, Irish-born with third level qualifications and working in semi-professional occupations, particularly in the health, education and public administration sectors. This is in marked contrast to the traditional image of their being lower paid, vulnerable, low-skilled workers. That is why I share the view expressed by Members on all sides that we are privileged to have such a group of highly skilled, dedicated and well educated personnel within the civil and public service.

In the context of the fiscal corrections under way, approximately 35% of current public expenditure is required to fund the public payroll. As a result, the Government took a number of measures designed to reduce payroll costs to a significant degree. These measures include a pension-related reduction and various other budgetary items. The Government has also taken steps to reduce payroll costs by a further €1 billion in 2010. The pay cuts imposed range from 5% to 20% - averaging 6.5% - and were implemented through the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009.

People in my party are not inured to the reality faced by ordinary citizens. We completely accept that public servants have been obliged to endure difficult adjustments and that these have given rise to frustration which has been vented through industrial action. I accept that people are angry. However, regardless of whether they are members of trade unions or dependent on public service money to provide their livelihoods, Irish citizens are innately decent and accept that the Government had no choice but to take the decisions it has been obliged to take. They also accept that the Government has taken these decisions in the national interest. It is unfair to level the political charge at Fianna Fáil that its members have no sympathy for or understanding of the anger of ordinary workers. Fianna Fáil Deputies, Senators, councillors and activists live and work in the same communities as Members on the other side of the House. Political representatives from my party hear from people the same sort of stories related by those opposite. We are not any different in that regard. However, we do not have a choice.

I regret that a view is widely expressed on the opposite side of the House that the current difficulties are unique to Ireland. The financial crisis is being experienced across the globe. Last week we came close to financial meltdown. It is not fair for anyone to state the Fianna Fáil-led Administration should be blamed for this.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that is the case.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has become apparent that those in the banking sector acted recklessly, even to the point of criminality. I accept that the common law system which operates in this country can be slow. Equally, however, it is methodical and under it, those to whom I refer will eventually be brought to book.

There have been populist calls for what the Americans term "the perp walk". People inquire how the United States was able to deal so quickly with the Enron disaster and various pyramid schemes. The US authorities are swift in identifying culprits and marching them off to the courts in front of television cameras. The US judicial system is completely different from that which operates in this country. I have every confidence that those people whose behaviour gave rise to the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves will be brought to book. The Government has made it clear that this will prove to be the case.

Confidence on the part of the markets is, in large part, determined by the degree to which the Government is seen to be successfully implementing a recovery programme. This confidence is a critical factor when determining the cost of our borrowing. It must be remembered that every cent paid in interest is one cent less available for schools and hospitals. Any signal to the markets that we do not have the will to take the pain that recovery demands will lead us to suffer the same fate as our Greek cousins. That is why the Croke Park agreement which represents a return to social partnership in the broadest sense is vital to our recovery.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must ask Senator Mooney to conclude. There are three further speakers offering and they will not be able to contribute if he continues with his contribution.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join all reasonable people in urging the acceptance of the agreement.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, I ask the Acting Leader to request an extension of time for this debate. I understand I am the only Member who intends to criticise the Croke Park agreement. I am my party's spokesperson on this matter, but I have not had an opportunity to contribute. I do not know if I will be able to avail of such an opportunity. If we are seeking to have a rounded debate, the views of those on all sides must be heard.

Martin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose that we extend the time available for statements by 15 minutes.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fine.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it agreed to extend the time available for statements by 15 minutes and that the debate will now conclude at 2.45 p.m.? Agreed.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to repeat the points made by previous speakers. Before Senator Mooney leaves the Chamber, I wish to point out that it is somewhat rich of those in Fianna Fáil to try to wash their hands of what has happened in the economy in the past two years. Like Pontius Pilate, they state they had nothing to do with what happened. They claim that external forces caused our economic downfall.

Senator O'Sullivan stated no one had predicted that this would happen. Many knew that there would be a day of reckoning. Those on the Government side knew that the boom which had kept them in power for so long would come to an end. They did not perhaps realise that it would come to such a crashing and sudden end, but they certainly knew it would happen. It is not acceptable for them to seek to abdicate responsibility for getting us into the mess in which we find ourselves.

There were two distinct phases to the Celtic tiger era. During the first five or six years of the period to which I refer there was substantial investment from overseas and a great deal of sustainable employment was created. However, the second five or six years were marked by an emphasis on property and lax lending policies on the part of the financial institutions. This was overseen by a Government which, as some of its members stated, was determined to keep the good times flowing. I recall the then Minister for Finance and current Taoiseach being questioned on the issue of rising house prices and stating that if more were built, the prices would drop. That was the Government's policy for a long period. People were bullied by the Government and the financial institutions into thinking that if they did not get on the property ladder and own a couple of houses, they were somehow missing out.

The Government profited to a huge degree from the boom in the property market. Almost 50% of the value of every home purchased went to the Government in either direct or indirect taxation. It is unacceptable, therefore, that representatives of the Government in this House should state they do not have a responsibility with regard to the situation in which we find ourselves.

As Fine Gael's spokesperson on finance in this House, I have long been a critic of social partnership. However, I am obliged to state we have never needed social partnership more than we do. However, I have a number of difficulties with the Croke Park agreement. I can understand why the union which represents lower paid civil and public servants was the first to vote against it. The people concerned were not, after all, catered for by the Government in any of its recent budgets. This was despite the fact that other parties had suggested lower paid civil and public service workers should be treated more fairly. I understand the frustration of the people concerned. I am, however, of the view that the agreement represents the best deal on offer. I have had an interesting discussion with a public servant in my area who is voting against the agreement because he is of the view that it is too good and that the country cannot afford it. While I have not encountered anyone else with that perspective, I urge other member unions in the social partnership process and of ICTU to support the agreement, not because it is a panacea or is a fantastic deal for their members but because this is a moment of national crisis and it is the best deal on offer. I hope they will be in a position to accept it.

I also pay tribute to the efforts of some leaders of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who have gone out of their way to secure this agreement which I believe provides a sustainable future for the public sector. The agreement provides for no further wage cuts, no compulsory redundancies and, in the case of the hoped-for economic improvement, that the Government will consider increasing the pay of lower-paid public sector workers in particular, which is important. It is also important that the agreement refers to issues concerning work practices. When Deputy Bruton was excoriated by the Government for opposing benchmarking, it was promised that benchmarking would sort out such situations but it did not. It now is opportune to try to get some movement on that issue.

I also agree with Senator Buttimer and others who mentioned that many public servants may perceive voting "No" to be an opportunity to kick the Government. Such an opportunity will come at the next general election, whenever that presents itself. This particular subject has reached the point at which it is above party politics and concerns the future survival of our economy and ensuring our ability to return to economic recovery as soon as possible. At present, approximately 400,000 people are out of work and unless a mechanism can be found to ensure their return to work, our current economic difficulties never will be resolved satisfactorily.

This may also be an opportune time for the Government to consider reforming the manner in which social partnership is conducted in Ireland. There should be a greater role for the Oireachtas in the manner in which social partnership works. In addition, there are a number of groups - Senator Bradford mentioned the small and medium enterprise sector - that are not part of the social partnership arrangement but which should be included. Members from all sides of the House have consistently expressed the view that small and medium-sized enterprises will be at the core of any job creation solution that may come to pass in the next few years and they should be included in that process.

I will finish on that point. While I have some reservations and understand fully the views of lower paid public servants in particular with regard to the Croke Park agreement, given the situation in which the country finds itself at present, it is the best deal that can be achieved.

Martin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recognise the good work done by David Begg. As a former trade union president, I worked with Mr. Begg for a number of years and always found him to be an able and honest person. He played a very important role in this regard and gave up much of his time. Trade union leaders have a very tough job at present. There is no point dwelling on the past as one must dwell on what is in front of one. While I can understand references made by another colleague to the CPSU, one must understand the members represented by the CPSU are from among the lowest paid pay grades in the public service. I can understand their perspective and do not wish to fuel any further anger. They perceive themselves as having been treated unfairly because some higher grades of public servants received an increase.

I will provide an example that was quoted to me yesterday by one of the aforementioned members. It concerns the chairman of NAMA who left a position for which he received a substantial pension and then got a substantial salary in NAMA. He received an further increase shortly thereafter. Similarly, some higher public servants received huge increases while lower public servants experienced a cut of 10%. Members should note that a cut of 10% to someone who earns €30,000 per year is quite different from a 10% cut to someone who earns €200,000 per year. This is the difficulty faced by such trade union leaders.

Public servants provide an important role within the system and provide a service for the private sector. Were they to become completely demoralised, it would pose a significant problem for everyone in the country. For example, in Revenue they deal with people who are starting up businesses or who are in business and play an important role. This must be recognised and I do not agree with the mentality whereby one tells people they are lucky to have a job. It does no good to anyone.

It is said there is no problem with reform in the public service either, but people do not like change. When I was in the union, I remember we once had a huge row over computerisation which we would not accept under any circumstances. I understand this, as must Members. They also must understand that the Croke Park deal is not perfect. When as a union leader one sits around the table with one's employers, the official side or whatever one might want to call them, one must be able to see where they are coming from. One must assess what is achievable because there is no point in going down a road that one knows will lead to a cul-de-sac because that is no use to one's members or to anyone else. As for Senator Mooney's comment that he could not understand the reason the CPSU members voted the way they did, when one puts out a ballot to one's members, one has no control over how they will vote and one must deal with the hand one is dealt. While I do not know how the CPSU will handle this result, I am sure they will resolve the matter. Too much emphasis is placed on blaming one another or unions or whatever. Everyone must work together in this regard.

In respect of reform within the public service, I have made the point several times to business people and so on that, at present, one is unable to talk to anyone within the public service. It is quite difficult for a business person or anyone else to speak to a person on the other end of the telephone to discuss starting up a business, motor tax issues, driving licences or any other issue. One gets two or three answering machines and recorders. The reason for this is that management introduced this. Management is not playing its role within the public service or within the local authorities, however, because managers are not managing. Although they are being paid huge salaries, they are taking little responsibility. They state that this is a union directive. I contacted a local authority recently and was told by a girl that she was not working to rule and would talk to me but that others were working to rule. Working to rule means one does what one is supposed to do every day. Not working to rule means that if someone asks one to remain working until midnight, one refuses to do it.

Overall, Members must be on the same wavelength, must understand where people are coming from and must understand the reason for their anger. They are angry because people on €30,000 per year have seen others who earn €200,000 per year receiving an increase at the same time their pay is being cut. This is understandable to anyone. A lot of work was put into the Croke Park deal, however, and I sincerely hope it works and I believe it will. People should get away from the practice of telling people they are lucky to have a secure job or to have this or that. This is not the message that should be sent out. Members should interact with such people, communicate with them in a real way and acknowledge that they are doing a good job to the best of their ability. In respect of the Passport Office, I can understand how a union leader cannot control a situation because tensions rise, people get emotional and so on. Consequently, Members should forget about that and should deal with what we have from henceforth.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share three minutes of my ten-minute allocation with Senator Alex White.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The overwhelming rejection by the CPSU, of which much has been heard today in the Chamber, of the Croke Park deal again emphasises the far from favourable response to it in the public sector, despite Government expectations. Other unions already have come out against the agreement and it is notable that it is the unions that represent the lowest paid workers in groups such as nurses who have been strongest in their rejection of it. The reason is that these are the same workers who have borne the brunt of the measures introduced thus far and who have little faith that the further cuts embodied in the deal will be balanced by the implementation of its positive aspects. Even among the union leaders who negotiated the deal there is little enthusiasm. Mr. Jack O'Connor admitted that had he reacted instinctively rather than strategically he would have rejected the offer. That is an indication of the difficult position in which trade unions representing public servants find themselves. On the one hand, there is a great deal of resentment at the manner in which they have been treated and, on the other, there is hope the last vestiges of social partnership can still provide some protection from the impact of the cuts already made and those threatened down the road. We have seen, however, that the Government and the employer organisations have no such commitment to social partnership. When it suited the Government, it rejected out of hand the proposals from the unions before Christmas. The only reason it offered the Croke Park deal was that it was aware of the anger among public service workers and saw it as a way of binding the unions to an agreement. Given the manner in which it has acted up until now, it will adhered to in regard to the concessions made by workers, but it will be abandoned if and when it decides to make further cuts.

A further indication that the Government and employers have abandoned social partnership which suited them during the good times was the proposal to introduce legislation to allow employers to pay below the minimum agreed rates on the basis of an inability to pay clause. That proposal is a direct consequence of lobbying by employers and will be strenuously opposed by the trade union movement.

It is in that overall context that workers view the Croke Park deal proposals. It is clear to many of them that they are being expected to carry the can for the incompetent elite who brought about the economic disaster and being forced, through the threat of facing something worse, to accept a pig in a poke on trust that the Government will honour its commitments to deliver on the positive aspects. It is the view of many that they can have no such trust, which is reflected in the reaction of those who have been balloted on the deal thus far.

It has been claimed that rejection of the deal will bring about an even worse situation. There is no doubt that the implications are, if the deal is rejected, that workers will be forced into taking more militant actions and that the Government, or any successor dominated by the same right-wing economic policies, will then feel free to attempt to impose even worse measures. That is true, but only if we accept that the current approach to the economic and financial crisis is valid. We have pointed out that there are alternatives based on shifting the onus for the crisis away from ordinary workers and placing it on those responsible for the mess. It would mean moving away from the current policy of imposing a massive burden on citizens to save the banks and the financial and property speculators. It is that perception which, above all, underlies the resentment and anger of workers in their attitude to the sacrifices they are expected to make and the cuts that have already been imposed upon them.

There is much talk about the national interest, but that does not carry much weight when contrasted with the way in which the banking and property elite have been treated, or the way in which those on higher wages in the public service were exempted from the cuts imposed on lower paid public servants, many of whom are entitled to family income support, which, in effect, means the State is subsidising its own pay cuts. Perhaps there is some logic to this, but it escapes me.

It is utter hypocrisy on the part of the Government to expect that people will accept all of this while they can clearly see that the so-called elite, including many who do not live in the State because their patriotism does not allow them to pay taxes or employ anyone here, are being cushioned or rewarded for their own incompetence. "Incompetence" is a word to describe what some of them were at. In other jurisdictions some of them would be mopping prison floors, rather than soaking up the sun on golf courses.

It is in that context that the deal is being considered. We must await the overall decision of union members when the ballots have been completed. However, one element is clear, namely, that we need to move away from the historic policies and create a strategy aimed at positive recovery based on our indigenous strengths and by directing the available resources to areas of growth, rather than creating a massive debt for future generations as a result of failed banks and property speculators.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Senators who contributed to what has been in the main a constructive debate. The Government and leaders of congress decided in March that, to boost our prospects of economic recovery and in the interests of those reliant on public services who would be affected by significant industrial action, an agreed way forward is best. The agreement creates the framework for the public service to change for the better in ways that public servants want.

I disagree with Senator Butler who stated he does not believe social partnership is applicable any more and agree with Senator Donohoe who placed great emphasis on the continued value of social cohesion. I am emphatically in the latter camp. I warmly welcome the Croke Park agreement which, of course, remains to be voted on. I agree with Senator Alex White that the trade unions and those voting on the agreement need space to make their decision. I would deprecate over-politicisation, in a partisan way, of the deal. At the same time, historically the labour movement has consisted of two wings, the trade unions and the Labour Party. I am a little surprised at the degree of reticence shown by the Labour Party, which is not just an Opposition party but a partner with the trade unions in the labour movement. I will confine myself to that particular point.

The agreement offers security in regard to pay levels for the public service and an agreed approach to reducing the effects of the financial emergency measures that had to be taken last year. Events elsewhere in Europe show how important it is that Ireland sticks to its objective of restoring the public finances to a sustainable position. There is an attempt - this was done again in this House this morning - to present the measures taken by Government as right wing measures. The socialist government in Spain had to take the same measures yesterday. The relatively new socialist government in Greece also had to take similar measures. I do not believe the actions governments are having to take, in regard to which Ireland has played a certain lead role, can be ideologically categorised.

Senator O'Toole spoke of the impact of the pay cuts on public servants who in good faith entered into commitments, as we all did, in respect of purchasing houses and so on. There is no doubt but that the pension levy and pay reductions have had a huge impact on public servants, delegations of whom we have all met. It is, perhaps, no consolation to them that other European countries are following the same path, with Spain and Portugal announcing pay reductions. The British Government this morning announced a 5% cut in pay for newly appointed ministers. The cuts imposed on the pay of all public servants was tough. However, the Croke Park agreement offers a route back with the commitments to apply savings achieved in an agreed manner in the 2011 pay review to commence reducing the effect of the pension levy and pay reductions. Acceptance of the agreement will be a huge gain not alone internally but from the point of view of confidence.

There were many references during the debate to the CPSU. Like others, I know Mr. Blair Horan quite well. I thought he gave a moderate interview on "Morning Ireland" this morning and made the reasonable point that while the CPSU has voted on the agreement other unions are also voting, following which all unions will have to sit down together to see how to move forward. The other night people, including a well known councillor in Dun Laoghaire, tried to gain access to Leinster House. The way one gains access to Leinster House, be it to the Seanad or Dáil, is to get oneself elected.

John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He might do that.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those who believe they can smash this Republic, however they describe it, greatly under-estimate, as many have during the decades, the strength of Irish democracy and the commitment of people to it.

Senator Boyle stated this is a time for all sides to come to a common understanding on how to solve the problems facing us. We need public service reform which will be of great benefit to us. There have been some logjams over the years that need to be loosened up. Senator Buttimer raised the issue of morale among teachers. As reported this morning, the Department of Education and Skills will be creating 1,000 new teaching jobs by the beginning of the school year in September. The Government has given commitments to education in the programme for Government. It is hoped that former colleagues of the teaching profession will bear this in mind. Even at a time of constrained resources, we have prioritised the education sector.

A number of Senators raised the issue of the impact on public representatives of the industrial action taken by public servants since the beginning of this year. A few weeks ago I received a call late one afternoon from the secretary to the county manager asking if it would be possible for him to speak to me on the phone. I could not resist replying that I did not see why not as I am not on industrial action. The industrial action has made life more complicated, which is another reason all sides would welcome agreement being reached. I have always had faith - this goes back to 1987 - in the basic good sense, intelligence and often statesmanship of the Irish trade union leadership. In a sort of perverse way I was almost pleased when Mr. Arthur Scargill urged people to fight on and fight harder given what he and Mrs. Thatcher did to the trade union movement and entire sectors of industry in the 1980s. The whole sense and purpose of policy of the past 25 years has been to avoid having to go any way in that direction.

In response to Senator Doherty, SIPTU represents some of the lowest paid workers in the public service and yet its leaders, Jack O'Connor and Patricia King and others, have shown leadership and told their members the truth, that this is the best deal available. Jack O'Connor has highlighted the elements of significance to his union, particularly the guarantees of no compulsory redundancies and involvement when decisions are taken on the design or outsourcing of work.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Martin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May 2010.