Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 2013

Vol. 799 No. 4

Public Sector Pay and Conditions: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Sean Fleming

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes the:

— rejection by public sector employees of the Labour Relations Commission’s proposals on pay and conditions;

— failure of the Government to disclose all relevant information concerning the draft agreement;

— difficulties that the proposed changes to conditions of employment would have had for many families;

— inconsistency of treatment of different categories of public sector employees under the Government’s proposals; and

— disproportionate impact that the proposed measures would have had on the pay and earnings of frontline and shift workers;

recognises the:

— huge sacrifices made by public sector employees and pensioners in recent years;

— ongoing savings being delivered by the current Croke Park agreement;

— significant benefit to the economy and society that the absence of industrial action in the public sector has achieved;

— need to ensure that further reductions in the overall public sector pay and pensions bill occur in a fair and structured manner; and

— importance of a shared commitment to reform by all stakeholders in the delivery of public services; and

calls for:

— immediate engagement by the Government with public sector employees with a view to obtaining a balanced agreement that can secure widespread support amongst public sector employees;

— confirmation that the Government will not legislate for an across the board 7 per cent cut in public sector pay; and

— a commitment to full disclosure of all relevant facts prior to the conclusion of a new agreement on public sector pay.

It is now nearly a week since we got word that the so-called Croke Park II proposals were rejected. Close to two thirds of public sector workers and 70% of individual unions voted against the deal. This has to be seen as a stunning rejection not just of the Government’s proposals but also the manner in which it went about selling the deal.

For the second time in 12 months, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform embarked on what he promised would be a major cost-saving initiative on the overall public sector pay bill. This is in addition to his failure to persuade the public to support his Oireachtas inquiries referendum some time ago. We have a clear picture now of a Minister who talks a good game but fails to deliver on the big occasions.

In the 2012 budget he told us he would secure €75 million in savings in 2012 and €150 million in savings in respect of allowances by the end of 2013. At the time, I recognised the current system was unnecessarily cumbersome and was in need of being streamlined. However, the process put in place failed to achieve the targets set. In fact, by October of last year, the Minister had to admit the savings he had achieved to date would only be a fraction of his original targeted amount.

The Minister must bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the outcome of last week’s vote. His words certainly did no favours to those unions which were attempting to sell the deal to their members. In his article on 5 April in the Irish Independent, he upped the ante considerably in a manner that may have been a significant contributing factor. It is worth reminding the Minister what he said:

In the absence of these measures, a straight pay cut would require a greater ask to reach the same target. Public servants, that under this agreement face a gross reduction in pay of, say 4%, could potentially see that increase to 7% in the absence of an agreement. The €300 million savings to the pay bill are in this year's budgetary arithmetic. Those savings will have to be made from the pay bill – the money simply is not provided for. Similarly, the €1 billion savings will have to be achieved by 2015.

If they cannot be made within the confines of an agreement with the public service unions, they will have to be made unilaterally. This will require legislation. The precise nature of that legislation will be considered if that eventuality arises.

I have seen the Minister’s performance in the run-up to the Croke Park II vote described as swashbuckling in some quarters. If that is the case, his appearance on last Tuesday night’s “Six One News” can only be described as extraordinarily meek by comparison. He looked somewhat shell shocked as he told the nation, “I will be taking a phone call from the troika tonight to explain what happened." It is extraordinary to find that the Labour Party, once so closely aligned with the trade union movement, now appears to be so out of touch with public sector workers. He went on the claim that he would run out of money before the end of the year if €300 million in savings were not achieved. This is despite the fact that the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, currently has €30 billion in cash. I am not recommending he dips into those reserves but it is extraordinary to claim the State will run out of money when it has such reserves. The statements are mutually contradictory.

What we have not seen from the Minister as yet is any serious analysis of why the deal was rejected or what can be done to rescue the situation to prevent it descending into the same level of farce to which the review of allowances last year descended. The unions opposed to Croke Park II launched an equality audit of the proposals which focused on the impact of changes in working conditions. These issues did not receive as much attention as the pay-cut elements of Croke Park II but I believe they were the decisive factor in the rejection of the agreement. Among the issues the audit highlighted was that the provision for additional hours would have a considerable negative impact on people with caring responsibilities be it for children or parents. In worst-case scenarios, this could force carers out of the workplace or put significant additional financial burdens on them. Restrictions on job sharing and flexitime are also likely to have been a considerable factor in the heavy defeat which the proposals suffered. When the draft agreement was published by the Labour Relations Commission, I met young mothers working in the public sector in Portlaoise who were crying at having to work extra hours and spend much less time with their families. Work-life balance was a significant factor. The audit stated:

These proposals discriminate on the family status ground because they will disproportionately disadvantage men and women with caring responsibilities in the public sector - the Employment Equality Acts prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on a number of grounds including gender and family status. It could further be a matter for the European Commission to adjudicate on, given the provisions of the equal treatment directives on the ground of gender.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of the Government’s proposals was the very harsh impact they would have had on front-line and shift workers. Everyone understands the critical nature of the services they provide, yet the Government felt it was acceptable to target them for a disproportionate slice of the overall savings for which they were looking. Two different workers with the same current take-home pay would have seen vastly different changes in their income depending on the extent to which they work shift and overtime. The 24/7 Alliance produced detailed analysis of the loss that would be suffered by different categories of workers. In the case of a staff nurse, the reduction in earnings allowing for the theoretical cost of having to work additional hours and the increment freeze is approximately 11.4% of pre-agreement total pay. For a paramedic, the effective loss would be 9.7% and 9.1% for a care assistant. For a Garda it would be 5%. I know the Minister will dispute these figures. However, he disputes the number of Sundays worked by some categories of public workers saying it is fewer than 26. He also played a little bit of fun and games with the statistics by talking about the average pay cut. Included in this figure by the Minister are those who will not get a pay cut at all. That means he is trying to reduce the overall average, notwithstanding that some people would have a disproportionate higher cut than the average.

These represented a massive additional hit to workers who have already contributed very significantly to reducing the public sector pay bill. We did not get a clear rationale from the Minister as to why he was proceeding in this way. In fact, what we did get was black propaganda as he publicly stated those unions who had remained in the talks had been able to get a better deal for their members while his officials briefed about a supposed €300 million pot of gold which would be available to sweeten the deal for those unions who supported it.

We believe it is imperative the Government urgently engages with public sector unions to seek an agreed approach to public sector pay. The absence of widespread industrial unrest has marked Ireland apart from other countries. The Government’s approach has put this at risk. We believe it is possible to conclude an agreement which achieves the necessary savings while achieving fairness and social solidarity.

I welcome the announcement that the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission has been asked to make contact with the parties in the coming days to establish if there is a basis for a negotiated agreement. I hope tonight’s motion has had the effect of galvanising the Minister into action.

Unfortunately, since the rejection of the agreement, his words have spread further confusion. Last week, when I asked the Minister what actions he now proposed to take, he indicated that most of those who would have been subject to pay cuts under the agreement would have seen their salaries restored after 2016. However, for those workers who were being asked to work longer hours, see reductions in overtime payments or the abolition of the double pay rate on a Sunday, no such assurance was forthcoming. This is symptomatic of what can only be described as a divide-and-conquer strategy. Last week, he claimed those earning over €65,000 will only have to take a temporary pay cut and will have their salaries returned at the end of the agreement.

However, the Minister has given no such commitment to those people who work on Sundays and nor did he give a commitment to the people being asked to work additional hours, most of whom are on low pay, that those extra hours worked would be of a temporary nature. Instead, he looked after the high paid workers by telling them they would have to take a cut but it would be restored to them in 2016. That is my understanding of what the Minister said here last week.

I accept the need for reform and modernisation in the public service. The Croke Park model is still the best one to achieve that and we support the principles that underpin it. If a new agreement is to be negotiated and put to public sector workers, it cannot be voted on in the absence of full disclosure of all relevant facts to all parties. By that I mean the various letters issued to individual trade unions by the Minister's Department, public sector management and the Labour Relations Commission. We are aware of at least ten letters having been issued shortly after the deal was negotiated, and I understand further clarification would have issued later. I asked the Minister to disclose those and he refused to do so, stating that it is not the normal practice. The Minister has regularly stated that he is in favour of freedom of information, yet he is hiding behind the old practice of not disclosing matters that are part of the labour conciliation process. This is the first time a deal has been voted down in terms of pay agreements at national level and the circumstances require all correspondence regarding that deal to be published. How can the Minister expect the Parliament to move forward with legislation if he is concealing facts as to the clarifications and implications of that deal?

Further savings are needed, and an agreed framework is the best way to bring that about. It is worth noting that the vast majority of savings achieved to date have been from measures introduced by the previous Government. Last year, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, claimed that, "A totality of €2 billion has been taken out of the public sector pay and pension bill as a result of the measures since 2008 and the measures that Brendan Howlin is introducing now". However, the reality is that the Government has not up to now introduced any significant measures to control the public sector pay bill.

The claim of the Minister, Deputy Howlin, that the Croke Park agreement was "an extraordinary tool for change" and that most of his European Union colleagues would give their right arm to have such an agreement rings hollow given his ham-fisted approach to the recent talks and their aftermath. The country wants and expects good public services. Good industrial relations and a shared commitment to reform are a cornerstone of the delivery of such services. The Government must learn the lessons of its failure to deliver this agreement. It must be open to hearing what public sector workers have to say and respond in a transparent manner.

Deputy Brendan Smith

The Fianna Fáil motion before the House takes stock of where we are now, reflects on the errors made and clearly recognises the need to achieve the savings required in a fairer way.

The fact that the Government has today decided to move part of the way along the road suggested by our motion and by our party spokesperson by asking the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission to make contact with the parties in the coming days is a welcome development and a recognition of what our party spokesperson on public expenditure, Deputy Sean Fleming, has been saying since the announcement of the vote last week. The only way to begin to undo the damage caused by the "No" vote is to go back to negotiations, treat all public servants equally and respect their goodwill towards the process.

With our party spokesperson, Deputy Fleming, I welcome that the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission, Mr. Mulvey, has been asked to intercede, but his involvement will only bear fruit if the root causes of the rejection of the Croke Park II deal are fully recognised. Our motion seeks to achieve this as it outlines clearly the issues, the challenges and the need to progress beyond the current impasse.

The serious and difficult position triggered by the "No" vote is of the Government's own making. It could have been averted if the Government had taken wiser counsel and adopted a less confrontational strategy in the first place. The scale and impact of what has happened is significant. Last week's rejection of the Croke Park II proposals was the first time in over a quarter of a century that trade unionists have rejected a national agreement.

What could have brought them to discontinue the long-standing practice of industrial harmony in this country that was beneficial to all? As set out in this Private Members' motion, it was a combination of issues. First, no sooner had Fine Gael and Labour Ministers taken up their portfolios than a large number of them were undermining the contribution of the public service while spinning behind the scenes about perks and privileges.

Second, most of those Ministers ignored the progress and savings achieved under the original Croke Park agreement. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, is exempt from that criticism as well. I remember a comment he made that was fulsome in regard to the Croke Park deal. Third, the Government adopted a divide and conquer approach that targeted public sector workers on the front line, leaving them to bear a disproportionate burden. All of us in our every day work, and people in society in general, recognise that many of those front-line staff are in the most challenging and demanding sectors of the public service. They are the people we rely on 24 hours a day, seven days a week to deliver services for us in many difficult circumstances. That was coupled with leaked details of an unspecified honey pot that would be available to sweeten the deal for unspecified sectors of the public service.

Fourth, when it became clear that points one to three were not working, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Government produced the big stick of a 7% across the board pay cut that would be pushed through the Oireachtas if workers did not support his proposals.

Nowhere in this strategy did we see the fairness and equality that was needed to win the support of the public service in general. Deputy Fleming, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, repeatedly called for full disclosure of all side offers but those particular details were not forthcoming from the Department or the Minister. That full disclosure is an essential first step if the Government and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform are to have any chance of restoring good faith with the public sector. So, too, is acknowledging the basic unfairness in some elements of the deal put forward so far.

It is difficult to figure out the reason the Government and its supporters, at various levels of public representation and in unions, could have urged and advocated acceptance of a deal that impacted negatively on women and family life. It should never have allowed a deal where two people on the same income according to their payslip would have seen a considerably different impact on their take-home pay depending on how it is made up between core pay and overtime.

The Labour Party's hard-ball, divide and conquer approach to the Croke Park II deal contrasts with its near silence on the Croke Park I deal. We will recall that in the autumn of 2010 the then Deputy Eamon Gilmore, as leader of the Labour Party in opposition, was singing a different tune. At that time he felt that union members should be left in peace to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the agreement and make their decision accordingly. A few months before that he was telling the Labour Party conference he wanted a government that would "change the way the system works and be prepared to change the system if necessary". It is now April 2013 and the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, and his Ministers are cajoling and warning workers to accept the deal or take a 7% across the board cut. It seems that rather than Labour changing the system, the system has changed Labour.

I appeal to the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who is one of the fairest members of the Government, to ensure that every effort is made to bring about an agreement. It is necessary that the Government engages fully and urgently with public sector unions and seeks an agreed approach to public sector pay. From 1987 until now we have had industrial peace in this country that is for the benefit of all our citizens. I believe it is possible to reach an agreement that achieves the necessary savings while at the same time ensures fairness and social solidarity.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I call Deputy Michael Moynihan who is sharing with Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Over the past 26 years the social and industrial partnership relationship has brought a huge dividend and we have had industrial peace around the table. Irrespective of the partnership's shortcomings, the long-term goal for the nation is to retain social partnership and ensure any agreements are negotiated. That is the right way to go forward politically. We must acknowledge the huge sacrifices that have been made by the public service. While there is an ongoing debate in the context of the public versus the private sector and the pros and cons of both sides, those who work in the public sector have made a huge contribution to Irish society.

When we speak about foreign direct investment, one of the first points made is that we have an educated young workforce available. Our education system, developed over the decades since the foundation of the State, has led us to a situation where we have a high standard of education for our young people. People who work in the education sector, school teachers, principals and those in the third level sector, have contributed and invested much of their life and work in creating an education system of which we can be proud. It is very easy to say one section of these workers is cleaning out the system and that there is another building it. However, when we look at the strengths of our system and society which have been developed over the years, we must acknowledge that the people working in the public service have contributed enormously.

Since the crash in 2008, people in the public sector have made sacrifices in the form of the pension levy and pay cuts. These people are good, conscientious citizens who work hard and believe it is their social responsibility to do what they can to ensure Irish society develops in a positive way and they are willing to make sacrifices to achieve this. There are always some who say the sector is willing to pay, but not us. However, by and large the public sector has contributed and made huge sacrifices. In the areas of innovation and expertise within the public sector and State services, such as in Forfás and training authorities, there has been ingenuity with regard to contributing to savings. This must be acknowledged.

We all remember the negotiations for Croke Park I and remember that some people behind the scenes were critical of those negotiations and agitated against them, but the deal worked and we tried to move forward with Croke Park II. I feel the failure of the negotiations had to do with the language used in handling them. All of society is vulnerable currently, and negotiations relating to pay cuts and conditions need to be framed in language that will bring people with us. Just as in 1987, when the first model for social partnership was introduced, an initiative that was also being developed elsewhere and which was introduced here successfully, it is vital the language used is moderate, considered and appropriate. The media always want to find an angle on partnership, but that leads us to a tangent to which we do not want to take those working in State services.

In many instances, the morale of people working in State services is on the floor and what we need to be able to do is to bring those people with us, because they have the greater good of Irish society in their hearts and minds as they go to work each day. We must also be conscious of those people who work in our front line services. These people risk their lives for citizens on a daily basis and they must be recognised in a special way. However, the language that was being used in the context of "sweetheart deals", whether these deals were real or imaginary, inflamed the emotions of ordinary, decent public sector workers. Statements were being made with regard to what would be done in 2016 and elsewhere, rather than what would happen in the here and now.

I welcome the initiative to bring both sides together now under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission to see whether there is any middle ground or whether any initiative can be introduced in regard to partnership, because it is the only way forward. The only way forward is to have an agreed solution. We need industrial peace in the country. We face significant challenges throughout the country on a raft of issues and the last thing we need is for a disagreement to open up which could have been avoided if moderate language had been used, if consideration had been given to the people involved and if respect had been shown to those at the coal face, whether people in the public service from nine to five, those on weekend work, those working 24/7 or those in our health service, justice or school systems. All of these people deserve and need our respect because they do a hugely important job for the State.

I commend the motion drafted by Deputy Sean Fleming to the House. It is a considered and calm motion which highlights that we believe industrial peace is vital for well-being and security of the State.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I thank the Fianna Fáil Party for allowing me some of its speaking time. This is a difficult and traumatic time to try to negotiate an agreement that will be acceptable to all. Last Saturday I met with retired psychiatric nurses who outlined for me their position and what they feel about what has happened. We can only squeeze so much out of people. As the Minister knows, I respect his position and I appreciate that he is dealing with a poisoned chalice and is trying to do the impossible. However, at the end of the day it is all about fairness. Deputy Moynihan was correct when he stated this is a considered and calm motion, not a motion that picks politically at the Government. The motion has been well thought out and tries to bring about a situation where a mutual agreement can be found that will be acceptable to all.

I have attended many meetings of the 24/7 group, who rightfully feel they have been targeted enough in the past. Retired people also feel they have been targeted enough already. All of these people are struggling daily with their budgets and that is the situation. Take, for example, a young garda who borrowed money for a mortgage during the height of the boom. He now finds himself in an impossible situation where he is paying a mortgage for a house that cost €300,000 or €400,000 but which is worth only €120,000 and he has a young wife and kids. Other people were trying to better themselves. They had been doing well in the public service and they borrowed money on the strength of that.

Nobody can blame anybody for trying to better themselves. I would certainly support every person who ever tried to do that. Having got caught when the investments they made went wrong, they are now relying on their jobs to assist them with their payments. One cannot blame them for being angry when the money from their jobs is being cut.

I agree that a terribly difficult balancing or juggling act has to be performed. That is why I thank Fianna Fáil from the bottom of my heart for bringing this motion before the House. It is right, proper and prudent that this matter is debated in a cool and thoughtful manner. Deputies on all sides of the House should get to make their contributions. We have to try to achieve what needs to be achieved in a fair way that is acceptable to all. I agree with the part of the Fianna Fáil motion that calls on the Government not to rush to "legislate for an across the board 7 per cent cut" in the manner that was suggested in this House by the Taoiseach and two or three Ministers. I do not think it would be right to rush into anything like that. I genuinely do not think it would be fair or proper.

At all times, we have to think of the young families, the middle-aged people and the people who are facing retirement. Last week, I met a deputation of retired psychiatric nurses who made a great case when arguing that they could not bear any further cuts in their pensions. The Government must listen to all of those arguments and take them on board in trying to achieve an agreement that is fair and equitable for all. I thank Fianna Fáil again for proposing this motion. I hope everybody who wants to make a contribution will get an opportunity to do so tonight and tomorrow night. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to listen to our viewpoints. I know he takes his job seriously and earnestly. It would be a mean person who would not stand up here and acknowledge that he is doing his best in difficult circumstances.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion, which is timely in light of what happened last week. It is fair, rational and well thought-out. It underpins something that is critically important in the overall context of public sector reform. Real reform should involve more than paying reduced salaries to public and civil servants. The only way for real reform to come about is by means of engagement. It is clear that the carrot and stick approach, which almost involved threatening and intimidatory behaviour towards the end when it was suggested that the pay of public servants would be cut by 7% across the board if the deal was not accepted, was not helpful at the best of times.

Social partnership has served this country well. I think most political parties support it. Obviously, Fine Gael is quite happy that it has fallen at this juncture. It was never ideologically, emotionally or politically attached to it. At a time when this nation is still vulnerable and is trying to restore confidence internally, domestically and internationally, industrial unrest is the last thing we need. I hope the skills of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and, more importantly - I do not mean any disrespect when I say this - the State industrial relations apparatus, including the Labour Relations Commission, are used to find a way through this impasse when those involved sit down together.

I cannot claim to have an indepth knowledge of the internal workings of a union like the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and others have. However, my impression is that this proposal was rejected because there was a perception that lower-paid workers, front-line workers and those who carry out a great part of public duties as they deliver services were being unfairly targeted. That might be an unfair perception, but that is certainly how it seemed to an outsider looking in. For all those reasons, it is important for us to acknowledge that nurses, gardaí and others who deliver front-line services on a daily basis would have been most unfairly affected by these proposals. The Minister was right when he said the core pay of people under a certain level was being protected, but he should accept that the vast majority of people who do shift work, who provide front-line services and who work outside the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. would have been unfairly affected if these proposals had been accepted. That has to be acknowledged when the negotiating table is revisited.

I suppose the area in which I have the most interaction with unions at this juncture is the health care sector, as my party's spokesperson on health. There was a genuine concern that the graduate scheme which was announced last year would undermine the nursing profession by requiring some of our highly qualified, motivated and committed nurses to start working on lesser pay than their peers with the same responsibilities. Such schemes genuinely undermine our workers.

I understand the difficulties the Minister is facing. I recall the difficulties we faced when we were in government. The Minister and his colleagues might not have acknowledged them in the same way when they were in opposition. Perhaps they exploited them. We can put that aside. The key issue is whether these people feel they are valued by the State. The best way to reward them is to accept the important role they play in the delivery of public services. I think that role has been undermined. I have previously made the point that it is inherently unfair to ask a generation of people who are now coming out of college - they were in primary or secondary school when certain decisions were made, supported and encouraged - to carry the can for the difficulties we presently face. I accept that we started it to some extent. It is intergenerational solidarity in reverse. We are asking those who are coming out of college to accept being paid less for something they had no hand, act or part in. They did not even vote in the relevant general elections.

To be quite blunt about it, I do not think this matter has been handled in a wonderfully diplomatic way. I expected more from the Minister, Deputy Howlin. I would have expected other members of the Cabinet, who will remain nameless, to have handled it in a ham-fisted way. In light of his background and his membership of the Labour Party, I expected the Minister to have a more intimate knowledge of the workings of the trade union movement. Any renegotiations should be based on parity and fairness. The Government should not ask people who were kids in secondary school or college when certain decisions were made, and who may never have voted, to carry a disproportionate burden as the State tries to address the difficulties in its public finances. That is something that should be acknowledged.

I find that Irish people are inherently decent and fair. When union members were asked to vote for this proposal, in effect they were asked to rubber-stamp the imposition of an unfair burden on those who provide front-line services and those who have just joined the public service or are about to do so. The unfairness of the proposals that were presented should be acknowledged when the Labour Relations Commission, the Government and others enter into overarching negotiations. If the Government removes the threat, that will represent a signal that it values public services, particularly front-line services.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

I would like to share time with Deputies Nash, Connaughton and Dowds.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“acknowledges:

— that public servants have made a substantial contribution towards the necessary reductions achieved in public expenditure since 2008, including through the unilateral imposition by the then Government of the pension levy and pay reductions applied under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts 2009; and

— the ongoing contribution made to cost savings in the public service pay bill and to improving productivity by public servants under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014, and the related agreements made under its auspices;

welcomes the contribution made by public servants to economic recovery including through the absence of industrial action;

commends:

— the Government on its early and open engagement with public servants and their union representatives on the difficult but necessary actions required to restore the public finances; and

— representatives of public service employers, unions and the Labour Relations Commission on the development of a balanced set of proposals that would deliver €1 billion in savings on the public service pay bill by 2015;

notes:

— that the Labour Relations Commission’s proposals protected the basic salary rates of low and middle income earners in the public service while applying progressive reductions to the remuneration of higher paid public servants, and provided for a negotiated and equitable approach to securing the necessary savings in the public service pay bill; and

— the proud record of the public service in introducing and implementing work-life balance arrangements and that public service employers continue to be committed to equality of opportunity in its employment practices;

agrees that, in view of public servants’ non-acceptance of the measures proposed by the Labour Relations Commission, it will now be necessary for the Government to decide on and secure alternative measures that will deliver the additional pay and pensions savings of €300 million for 2013 and €1 billion by 2015 to meet public expenditure targets; and

further welcomes the Government’s request to the Labour Relations Commission to explore and report back to Government on whether the basis for a negotiated agreement exists between the parties.”

It is ironic to be standing here debating a Fianna Fáil motion on the public service agreement on the day the troika arrives in town for the tenth programme review. As we speak, representatives of the current Government continue to discuss the carnage in the public finances and banking sector we inherited from Deputy Martin's Government.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

And supported and encouraged.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Thankfully, things have improved somewhat since Fianna Fáil was run out of office. This Government has reduced the deficit to 7.6% of GDP. In the year before Deputy Martin, Deputy Fleming and their colleagues opposite left office, the deficit was over 30% - in fact, 32.4% - the highest deficit on the planet at that time.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

This is not helpful.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The contrast does not end there. This Government approached the issue we are debating very differently from its predecessor Government.

Deputy Billy Kelleher

That is why it failed.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

This Government afforded trade unions the opportunity to ameliorate the budgetary challenge facing their members in the public service. On two occasions, Deputy Martin's Government cut the pay of public servants unilaterally - no negotiations, no votes, just cut.

There is no doubt, and I say this honestly, that I would prefer to be standing in front of this House this evening defending the outcome of a negotiated process and the need to implement the LRC proposals to reduce the cost of the public service pay and pension bill by €1 billion over the next three years. That was not to be. I do not doubt, though, that if it had been passed, there would be many opposite who would be opposing me, although not necessarily some of those who spoke earlier, who actually have an understanding of these matters. However, I still believe that the LRC proposals were fair and balanced, and, in particular, fair and balanced to the public servants involved. They protected core pay and allowances where those allowances were part of core pay. I have spent two years defending the Croke Park Agreement. I have spent two years explaining why, in many instances, allowances are part of core pay.

In terms of the comments just made on intergenerational solidarity, one of the core objectives of this set of proposals was to end the disparity that had developed in recent years in that regard. The proposals segmented the workforce into four income categories and treated each differently. Those earning in excess of €100,000 would suffer permanent losses in pay. Those between €65,000 and €100,000 were afforded a path to pay restoration following the expiry of the agreement. Those under €65,000 suffered no loss in core pay. In the zero to €35,000 and €35,000 to €65,000 categories, the treatment of increments was similarly progressive. Central to the agreement was a series of productivity measures which reduced the need for cash savings. This was a complex deal, much more complex than Croke Park I because it strove so hard to be fair and balanced. The negotiators, particularly from the trade unions, worked hard to achieve that balance.

The proposals were also, I believe, fair to the taxpayer. We have not heard much about the taxpayer in this debate so far - in fact, I do not believe the taxpayer was mentioned by any of the Deputies opposite. The taxpayer is entitled to have public services that reflect the 24-7 nature of the modern world. I regard that as important as ensuring that the public service reflects best practice in the treatment of its workforce. The proposals also made good on a strong desire of mine to replace the two-tier pay scales introduced by Deputy Martin's Government, the very point that was just referred to opposite.

Let me put it on record that I accept the decision of public servants in the ballot. I do not believe this decision constitutes a rejection of collective agreements by them but, in the absence of an alternative agreement, that is the space we now find ourselves in. I have heard some teacher unions' representatives defend their move towards strike ballots by claiming they are not the "aggressors". I find the language strange. There are no aggressors here, merely a Government seeking to make good the huge hole in the public finances caused by Deputy Martin's party. This issue arises solely because of the place we, as a people, collectively find ourselves in. The public finances - or in normal parlance, the employer - remain in a perilous position. Were this the private sector, there would talk of job losses and jobs would be on the line.

I was concerned about some of the information imparted during the ballot process and felt it necessary to make some statements during the debate. Deputy Fleming and others have sought to make some noise about those comments, and we have heard them again tonight. Why this is so in Deputy Fleming's case, I am not sure, because his only point of substance was to demand €50 million more in savings this year - that was his contribution on the politics programme on the Sunday before the ballot was announced. Nor is there any evidence that he read what I said, although he did accurately quote it tonight, finally.

My message was a simple one. The savings required were and are real, and in the absence of the desired agreement to pursue them in a negotiated fashion, they would still have to be made and there is no escaping that. That remains my position. It was for clarity on this issue, so people would make very difficult and momentous decisions that affected themselves and their families while knowing the full facts, that I made the statements I made, with a rigorous appraisal of the State's finances and laying out the quantum of savings I genuinely believe are required from pay and pensions. Some of those who left the talks on the eve of the agreement had been aware of scale of the challenge for well over a month at that stage.

Listening to some union leaders commenting since the vote, it seems there is now a groundswell against austerity. Austerity is a nice phrase to hang your hat on, so let us deal with that one. I am not a believer in austerity. I believe in a more coherent anti-austerity strategy across Europe, which would be a good idea not only for Ireland but for all of Europe. If President Barroso needs an ally in this regard, given the comments he made yesterday, he certainly has one here, in me. The key threat to Ireland successfully exiting its programme of assistance is the economic environment in Europe itself. I am not a dreamer either, however. I have been in politics long enough to know the damage done to a small country like ours by not being able to pay its way. Burgeoning deficits in the 1970s - Fianna Fáil again of course - undermined our viability and led to the inevitability of an imbalance in our books. As we found out then, who will invest in a country in a permanent sense of crisis? We dragged on that recession unnecessarily because we did not take the necessary corrective action early enough, which is the fault of all parties.

This State is pursuing anti-austerity policies by any definition. We continue to run up a sizeable budget deficit each year despite our enormous debt burden. The size of the budget deficit is being reduced in a steady and rational fashion. The Government has already added a further year to that timetable by negotiation with the troika, but the idea that we can push that debt burden higher and higher on a permanent basis defies reason and mortgages the future for the next generation of Irish citizens.

I know the measures the Government has to take are unpleasant. God knows I do not want to be the bearer of bad news. I wish I was Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in good times rather than the most awful times in our history. These measures are difficult for people to accept, and I understand that, but this will be the final push to secure the exit from Deputy Martin's troika programme.

On a side issue, Deputy Fleming is much taken with the idea that letters of clarification issued during this process. I find his fascination with the issue to be strange. He seems unfamiliar with the normal practice of industrial relations, at least as practised by his own party. There are numerous letters of clarification in existence in regard to the original Croke Park deal negotiated by his Government.

Today, the Government had an initial discussion on the implications of the rejection of the proposals of the LRC. In line with our overall approach, which is that we much prefer to achieve the reductions that are needed in pay and pensions by way of negotiation rather than by unilateral expropriation, the Government decided to ask Mr. Kieran Mulvey of the LRC, who facilitated the talks process in January and February, to make contact with the parties to see whether there is a basis for a further engagement that might lead to an agreement.

He will do that exploration over the coming days with both sides and report in time to allow for a further discussion and decision by the Government. I do not want to put a timeframe on his work but we estimate it will be about a fortnight. The Government is certainly willing to talk to staff representatives who are prepared to reach a realistic compromise with the Government on how to make these demonstrably needed savings. The reality of the budgetary timetable is such that time for any discussions is running out. I hope this satisfies Deputy Fleming. It certainly meets his dual requirement of holding open the door to a negotiated solution while remaining clear about the scale of the fiscal challenge to be met, although, as I pointed out earlier, he wants to make deeper cuts this year.

Indeed, looking at Fianna Fáil's pre-budget material from last year, one can see a sense of faux outrage at the Government's strategy that is manifest in tonight's motion. It is no harm reminding the House of Deputy Fleming's commitments made less than six months ago on this talks process. This is what the Fianna Fáil pre-budget proposal said. It was the published, official position of Fianna Fáil for this year's budget:

We believe the pay and pensions bill is not falling fast enough and an additional €350m needs to be achieved in 2013. However, should agreement with the unions not be reached by March 1st 2013, the Government will have to consider a range of measures to achieve this additional level of savings including: a reduction in the sick leave, including uncertified sick leave bill of €50m; an average cut of 5% in actual allowances to save €75m; deferral of increments for 2013 to save €170m, with no increments payable above €100,000; accelerated targeted redundancy in administrative and management grade numbers to save €30m; additional working hours and a change to work practices.

So said Fianna Fáil six months ago. This House is well used to Fianna Fáil's year-zero approach to anything that took place between 1997 and 2011 but it appears that on this occasion, a special exemption is being made for 2012. Earlier today, Deputy Fleming led a walkout of the Opposition from the Select Sub-Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, having falsely accused the Government of doing what his party had advocated - same old Fianna Fáil.

In conclusion, as a Government and as a society, we are now facing an extraordinarily serious and daunting challenge. It is certainly the most serious challenge we have faced in generations and is probably more serious than any challenge except those faced by the founding Government of the State. We are entering a critical period of our engagement with the troika, which I met this evening at 6 p.m. We are moving to discuss our exit from the bailout programme. Adherence to our budgetary targets remains as important as ever if we are to achieve this critical national goal.

Despite a media furore about public service pay, since taking office, this Government has remained wedded to walking the route of co-operation with public sector workers. We want to work with trade unions that want to work with us. We would like to afford public service workers the protections of a collective agreement and certainty. It is for that reason that the Government decided today to ask the Labour Relations Commission to talk to all the parties involved to see if, even at this late stage, there is any possibility of a negotiated outcome which meets the Government's and the country's spending targets. I thank Mr. Mulvey and his team for accepting this task. They contributed hugely to this process in the original discussions. They are respected by all the parties involved and I know engagement with them will be honest and constructive. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Fianna Fáil's sheer brass neck never ceases to amaze me. As outlined by the Minister, Fianna Fáil and its leader do not come to this issue with a clean pair of hands. The party that had no compunction in unilaterally slashing the pay of public sector workers is now attempting to pose as the new best friend of the public service. Its hope that the Irish people and public sector workers have short memories is as vain as this motion is nakedly self-serving. Like the Bourbons, Fianna Fáil has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Public servants do not need to cast their memories back too far to recall a party that at the stroke of a pen took thousands of euros per year from their pockets without even the fig leaf or the courtesy of attempting to engage with the trade unions on an alternative approach. The Government can do without Fianna Fáil's advice on this matter. The conduct of Fianna Fáil on this and other critical issues of national importance is the equivalent of the arsonist who starts chucking stones at the fire brigade while telling the gardaí that the blaze had nothing to do with him. It is incomprehensible and a distraction from the main issue which has been concentrating the minds of the Government and many trade union officials, namely, the question of how we can resolve this major challenge in a fair and equitable manner.

This motion makes extraordinary, inaccurate and downright misleading claims about the fairness and equity of the proposals voted on by public sector workers in recent weeks. I do not intend to go into any great detail about a set of proposals that were, all things being equal, objectively fair and progressive in that they took more from those who had more to give and asked those earning under €65,000 to make concessions on the productivity side but not on the core pay side. All that being said, public sector workers have given their view on the proposals and the Government and I completely respect the outcome of the ballot, as has been iterated by the Minister. While the outcome of the ballot demands that we seriously and earnestly reflect on the ramifications and the way forward, the mathematics and the required quantum of savings have not been altered.

I have huge respect for colleagues in the trade union movement who stayed the course and worked with the realities of the situation that confronted their members, as most progressive trade union leaders do. They confronted the situation as they objectively found it and worked under very challenging circumstances to ameliorate and mitigate the more egregious aspects of the propositions as originally tabled. I welcome the fact that the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission will engage with the public sector union leaders to scope out the prospect and potential for engagement. In this light, I believe trade union leaders would be reluctant to sacrifice some of the hard-fought gains extracted from the recent process - protection against outsourcing and excessive reliance on agency staff, no compulsory redundancies, protection of core pay for lower and middle-income workers and, crucially - if the House needs to be reminded - the benefits and opportunities provided by the system of collective approach traditionally taken in this country in recent years to the setting of wages and conditions in the public service. There is a limit to the amount and depth of reform that can be achieved by alternative approaches outside of arrangements arrived by collective agreement. I know this is a factor that will inform all our considerations in this House and those of the Government and unions in the coming days and weeks.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

Like many Members of this House, I am disappointed that the Croke Park II proposals were rejected by the unions, but now that they have been rejected, it is important that we properly explore the reasons they were rejected and consider the views that were shared in order to determine the best course of action. There is no easy option to be taken. A total of €300 million in savings must still be found from the public pay bill. After the significant cuts to pay in recent years, there are no easy avenues to take on this occasion, and the necessary cuts will be a cause of great concern for many public sector workers. The pay and pensions bill currently accounts for over 35% of all public spending and so, in order to bring the public finances back to a more sustainable level, that bill must be tackled. The savings necessary for this year are significant in terms of getting public spending back on track but are also important in ensuring that Ireland's finances are put on a more sustainable footing in years to come.

At all times the Government has endeavoured to proceed on the basis of consensus, and thus a lengthy negotiation process took place before the proposals rejected last week were finalised. The proposals rejected last week would have seen €1 billion in savings delivered through a range of pay and productivity measures as well as workplace reforms. The aim of the proposals presented last week was to protect lower-paid public servants and would have protected the core salaries of the 87% of public service workers who earn under €65,000. That fact has been lost somewhere in the fog of debate surrounding this issue. Protecting the pay of those who earn under €65,000 was a significant element of the deal rejected last week, and this core protection was a key reason many public service workers opted to vote for the proposals despite the many harsh measures they contained.

If legislation is the route pursued, although I hope this will be a last resort, it will institute pay cuts for public servants, Members of the Oireachtas and members of the Judiciary, and will also involve cuts to pension payments of former public servants.

There was a perception abroad that front-line workers were going to bear the brunt of these cuts. However, the LRC proposals were, in fact, fairer than the perception. For example, a staff nurse working 22 Sundays and public holidays and twilight shifts every two weeks would have seen a reduction of 3.8% in gross pay or 2% in net pay. Similarly, a garda on the maximum point of the scale would have seen a drop of 3.6% in gross pay or 2.3% in net pay, while a primary teacher on the tenth point of the scale would have seen a a reduction of 3.5% in gross pay or 1.9% in net pay. However, there are two points that are not represented by these figures. First, many of the families concerned are already in considerable financial distress, having borrowed at the height of the property boom. They now find themselves in negative equity and struggling to make mortgage repayments. Second, the impact of workplace reforms on teachers whose supervision and substitution arrangements are being totally overhauled has to be noted.

Another misconception relates to the number of public servants on very high salaries. As most public servants are only too aware, there are very few positions at the top end of the pay scale. Some 1% of public servants are paid over €150,000. Under the proposals rejected last week, a senior public servant on €175,000 would have faced a reduction of 7% in gross pay or 5.9% in net pay.

It is welcome that the Government has requested the head of the Labour Relations Commission to contact the various parties involved to establish if further negotiation can yield results. Perhaps a teasing out of the exact reasons people voted "No" might point towards a possible solution to allow progress to be made in the coming weeks.

One element of the entire set of proposals that needs to be looked at is pensions. I note that the LRC recommendations do not relate to pensions currently in payment as the trade unions do not have a mandate to negotiate for pensioners. It is the Government's stated intention to require public service pensioners to make a further contribution, ensuring an element of burden-sharing by higher paid pensioners. It will remain incredibly difficult to sell this deal while former Taoisigh, politicians and bankers enjoy huge pensions. This element needs to be tackled. Many of those at the root of the problems we are facing have, apparently, sailed off into retirement without as much as a backward glance at the trail of destruction they have left in their wake, free to enjoy over-generous pensions paid by a nation which simply cannot afford such generosity.

Deputy Robert Dowds

The result of the ballot must be accepted by all of us. I acknowledge that it was very difficult for public servants to be asked yet again to accept any pay reduction or a worsening of their conditions of work. Like others, I recognise that public servants have made a very great contribution to efforts to tackle the appalling financial state in which the country finds itself.

I commend the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, for his work in this area. He strove night and day, with very respected and hard working trade union leaders, to come up with a fair and equitable arrangement which, unfortunately, has been rejected. I have no doubt that part of the reason for the rejection was that people were completely and utterly fed up with austerity, and that goes for every one of us. The more we can persuade the central European authorities to loosen the purse strings to enable Europe's economy to expand again the better because this will help us to get out of what is a very difficult situation.

It is clear from the details of the proposal that the Government was attempting to deal with the need to save €300 million this year in as fair a manner as possible. This is evident in the fact that only salaries greater than €65,000 a year were to be cut in terms of core pay. Politicians were rightly included in that pay cut, with other public servants such as doctors and judges who are also very well paid. One of the commendable aspects of the arrangement was the effort to ensure fairness for lower paid workers. For example, the position of younger teachers who had been disadvantaged was strengthened. Deputy Gerald Nash referred to others who similarly had their positions protected.

The problem dates back to when Fianna Fáil negotiated with the troika. Some cuts were not assigned to any particular area. The result of that complete and utter fudge by Fianna Fáil and also the meltdown in the public finances over which Fianna Fáil presided is that the Government needs to reduce the public sector pay bill again. This is a case of handling another unexploded mine which Fianna Fáil passed on to the Government.

I welcome today's news that in deciding how to achieve savings of €300 million the Government has requested Mr. Mulvey to make contact with the unions to explore the possibility of holding talks. I am convinced that the best way to deal with this issue is through negotiation. It is far better than trying to ram through legislation and imposing something on workers who understandably are upset and unhappy. It worth remembering that when Fianna Fáil held the reins, it imposed a 7% reduction and cut the national minimum wage by €1, thus taking €35 to €40 a week from the lowest paid workers, most of whom are women.

The Government's proposed approach would help to guarantee industrial peace, which is obviously preferable to conflict and confrontation. Whatever happens, it is vital that the 13% of public servants, including politicians, doctors and judges, bear the brunt of the cuts as was the case under the original plan. Increments for higher paid civil servants should also be frozen. It is highly regrettable that the Government has had to return to the situation where more public service pay reductions are necessary. It is my hope this will be the last time they will be asked to accept reductions.

There is a very important message in the financial mess from which we are trying to escape. It points to the need for a new type of politics with a sound economic base. The societies in Europe which are most equal and fair are the Nordic countries. These are also the countries that keep very tight control of their finances. They do not allow themselves to go seriously into the red, whereas we have tended, particularly when led by Fianna Fáil - it is very hard to resist that urge - to try to buy the electorate, rather than trying to sell it an idea as to how society should be organised, whether it be in the area of health or education, for example. We need to get away from this type of politics. We need to begin with a determination to maintain our economic base as strong as possible and then build as fair and equal society as possible.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is sharing time with Deputy Sandra McLellan.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I feel as if I have entered some kind of twilight zone in the Chamber. Those on the Government benches are lauding the Croke Park deal. Apparently, it was fair, progressive and equitable. The message seems to be coming from the Government that anyone with an ounce of wit would have understood that it was so. When workers came to vote, they had considered the matter very carefully. It is all very well for Deputies to say the pain would not have been so bad for a nurse or a garda.

Nurses, gardaí, teachers, front-line workers generally and clerical officers took out their calculators and did their sums and their conclusion was that the agreement was not equitable. They were not prepared to sign up for it. The Government can stick to its line of argument in respect of the deal, but to do so is academic. The Government should remember, as it congratulates itself for not acting unilaterally and commends itself, as it does in its amendment to the motion, on its early and open engagement with public servants, that it made the choice to summon the unions to the table and agree a process which included an open and fair ballot of public and civil servants. It defies logic that a Government that freely entered into the process and insisted that unions come to the table should set its face against the democratic verdict of the workers.

I do not believe, as some in the House may, that public and civil servants are lacking in the judgment department. They looked at the deal, including pay and flexible work arrangements, and said "No, thank you." It is not because they are irresponsible. Let us remember that over the last number of years, 30,000 public servants have been lost to the system. Bear in mind that we face a further loss of 10,000. Public and civil servants have heard the mantra of doing more with less repeated ad nauseam as they struggle in accident and emergency departments or continue to process medical cards and disability allowances. It is the trite response and position of Government. It should be borne in mind that this set of workers have had an average cut of 14% thus far. In the case of new entrants, cuts have been as high as 25%. It is not a sector of workers who have got off scot free - far from it. Nevertheless, the Minister lauds himself as being "wedded to walking the route of co-operation with public sector workers". It is very interesting language. I imagine the marriage will be very short-lived. The Minister is wedded to this form of co-operation, yet he stands time and again, including this evening in the House, to point the finger at public and civil servants and tell them they got it wrong. The Government has asked the Labour Relations Commission to intervene. According to the Taoiseach, the commission has been given a two-week timeline to decide whether there is scope for a negotiated settlement. The interesting thing is that the Government has clearly said to the LRC that it is still Croke Park II. I can only gather from the Taoiseach and the Minister that those are the clear instructions. While the workers have voted the deal down, the Government is trying a ruse to rehash it.

The Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and his colleagues correctly castigated the Fianna Fáil administration for unilaterally savaging the pay of public and civil servants, but they have fallen short on that score in the wake of the rejection of Croke Park II. Some members of Government, particularly the Minister, were vociferous in threatening workers and their unions with a 7% cut across the board. In all of the reflection and discussion since the rejection of the Croke Park II, nobody has come out to say that threat has been withdrawn. It is disgraceful, dishonourable and mind-boggling from an Administration that is wedded to walking the road of co-operation with unions. It is not a very co-operative stance for the Government to take. Not only has the Government failed to withdraw the threat of unilateral action, it has moved through the Houses of the Oireachtas to have the Revised Estimates considered and rubber-stamped by select committees. The Revised Estimates have the Croke Park cuts hard-wired into them. The Minister made reference to the fact that the combined Opposition left the Select Sub-committee on Public Expenditure and Reform today as a mark of protest at the fact that the Government - which is, let us remember, wedded to walking the road of co-operation with the unions - has decided to include in the Revised Estimates the very measures workers rejected comprehensively.

I predict that the Government will try by some ruse to get Croke Park II through. While it is very critical of its predecessor, the Government has not only adopted its policies, it has also taken on a number of its bad habits. One of its chief bad habits is the inability to understand that when a democratic process returns a verdict of "No", "No" is the categoric answer. That is what the workers have said. I imagine the Government will try to find some tweak or manoeuvre to get this through. It will not succeed. As a last resort, the Government, particularly the Labour Party, will keep the option of legislating for cuts. Everyone must understand that the workers who have resisted this deal by democratic ballot will resist, quite correctly, any attempt by Government to impose a legislative cut unilaterally. To do so would be bad politics and bad form. To claim that one is anti-austerity as a member of a Government that has heaped austerity on low- and middle-income families in particular is nothing short of a bad joke. Everybody has been hurt. Workers in the private sector have taken a significant hit. Those families we refer to as the working poor know all about austerity but so too do low- and middle-income workers in the public and civil service. The CPSU, which represents clerical officers, rejected the deal by 87%. It is more than definitive; it is overwhelming. They are not wrong. They knew full well the implications of the deal for their pay packets and their working lives.

The Minister with responsibility for Croke Park, Deputy Brendan Howlin, will no doubt attempt to revive and resuscitate the agreement. I wish him nothing but the best of bad luck in his endeavours.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

Now that it is in opposition, Fianna Fáil is calling for reform of the public service. It complains about "the inconsistency of treatment of different categories of public sector employees". To call for fairness and balance in the aftermath of the rejection of Croke Park II is typical Fianna Fáil manoeuvring and reeks of hypocrisy and political opportunism. When it was in power, Fianna Fáil could have introduced reforms to benefit low- and middle-income workers, but it did nothing. Its legacy is, rather, a public service that is bloated at the top with overpaid bureaucrats while the vast majority work for low and middle incomes.

What makes Fianna Fáil's Private Members' motion even more nauseating is the fact that in 2010 when the party was in power, 2,855 public servants were in receipt of family income supplement because they could not survive on the poverty wages that Deputy Micheál Martin and his party stood over. So let us not be fooled by Fianna Fáil’s recently discovered bleeding heart. When in power, the party is as ruthless, anti-worker, and pro the status quo as Fine Gael any day. Since Fine Gael has come into power, the number of public service workers in receipt of family income supplement has increased. Under Fianna Fáil it was 2,855 in 2010 and, as of April 2013, it is 3,339, an increase of 484 workers under the current Fine Gael and Labour Party Government. If evidence were needed that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are two sides of the same coin, this is it.

In government, both parties are prepared to preside over a public service where over 8% of workers are officially classed as the working poor and dependent on Government hand-outs for basic survival. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour have no problem with almost 9% of hard working public servants earning poverty wages. If both parties were genuinely concerned about low and middle income public sector workers, they have had many opportunities to address the huge gap in terms of pay between the high earners at the top and the bulk of public servants, who are middle and low income workers.

Before union members voted on Croke Park II, Sinn Féin was of the view it was a bad deal for ordinary workers. It was a bad deal for nurses, teachers, gardaí, clerical staff, support staff, ambulance and fire crews and all the other occupations that make up our public service. Public sector workers have now spoken and Sinn Féin commends them on their stand against austerity. They are put to the pin of their collar and can take no more. One third of the public sector earns the average industrial wage or less. Another two thirds can be defined as middle to low income. These workers and their families did not bring the country to the edge of economic ruin. They did not borrow millions during the boom years. They did not live lavish lifestyles or surround themselves with expensive trinkets bought on borrowed money. These are ordinary women and men who work long and often unsocial hours to put food on the table and a roof over their families' heads. Austerity is not working and the socialising of private debt is bad economic policy and damaging to society and the body politic.

There is another way. If the Government is serious about reform of the public sector, it should eliminate runaway pay at the top and gold-plated pensions. In its budget proposals for 2013, Sinn Féin suggested a third tax band of 48% on individual incomes in excess of €100,000. Sinn Féin supports ordinary public sector workers and will continue to oppose any and all efforts to cut their pay or alter existing agreements that would have a negative impact on their working conditions.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I propose to share time with Deputy Seamus Healy. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing me to speak on this important debate on the public sector, the Croke Park agreement and the broader economy. I am not surprised by the rejection of the Croke Park II proposal. Most public servants I know are hopping mad because of the way they were treated by the Government. That is the harsh reality. Even moderate people are fuming because they have taken a major hit. Now, the Government wants them to take more in an economic climate where people's backs are to the wall.

Some of the comments and publicity I hear about public servants gets up my nose. Most of the Ministers, commentators and politicians would not last five minutes in an accident and emergency unit, in a disadvantaged school, or on duty on a Sunday morning stopping fighting and anti-social behaviour as part of ambulance or fire-fighter teams and being abused and attacked trying to help people in the wider world. That is the reality for many public servants. They are right to be angry and to make their views known.

Does the Government realise the difficulties the proposed changes to conditions of employment will have on many families? Does it realise the inconsistency of the treatment of different categories of public sector employees under the Government's proposals and the disproportionate impact the proposed measures would have had on the pay and earnings of front-line and shift workers? Is the Minister of State aware of the major sacrifices made by public sector employees and pensioners in recent years? Is she aware of the ongoing savings being delivered by the Croke Park agreement, the significant benefit to the economy and the need to ensure further reductions in the public sector pay and pensions bill occurs in a fair and structured manner? Is she aware of the importance of a shared commitment to reform by all stakeholders in the delivery of public services? Is she aware of the major negative impact for SMEs because of cuts and reductions? I support the motion in calling for the immediate engagement by the Government with public sector employees, confirmation that the Government will not legislate for a 7% cut in public sector pay, and full disclosure of all relevant facts prior to the conclusion of the new agreement on public sector pay.

Deputy Seamus Healy

This Private Members' motion by Fianna Fáil is the height of hypocrisy. This is the party that cut the wages of workers. It is the kettle calling the pot black. I am opposed to the Private Members' motion and the Government amendment. Both motions target public sector workers for major cuts, amounting to €300 million a year and €1 billion by 2015. Public servants have been unfairly targeted and they have already lost 14% to 22% through wage cuts. They have already had the so-called pension levy and lost 30,000 through redundancies in the service, with more to follow. There were some 6,000 redundancies in the health services and there is also a moratorium on recruitment.

The rejection of Croke Park II is a blow to the Government and to the overpaid trade union bureaucrats. It is the beginning of a rank and file fightback to take back the unions from bureaucrats, many of whom were in league with the Government's austerity programme. Workers have rejected austerity and they resent being forced to shoulder responsibility for a recession they had no hand, act or part in creating. Trade union leaders would be betraying those who voted "No" and said they had enough of austerity and cuts if they were to enter talks again. The talks will only focus on how cuts are to be distributed across public sector workers. There must be no concessions to the cuts agenda.

Following the Croke Park II vote, trade union leaders have no mandate to enter talks on the cuts agenda. If the trade union leaders want the introduction of progressive taxes, they should refuse to let the Government off the hook. They should refuse to enter talks and launch a campaign of all public sector workers seeking the tax changes identified by ICTU. If they really believe austerity has failed, they should lead a campaign for a real alternative. Unfortunately, the reality is the trade union leaders are more concerned with protecting the Labour Party in government than advancing the position of their members.

It is a pity the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, left the Chamber. It is shameful that a Labour Party Minister would attempt to cut pay and pensions, undermine the working conditions of workers and threaten them with cuts through legislation of 7%. What would Connolly have thought of that? What would Jim Larkin, who led Dublin workers 100 years ago this year in the 1913 Lock-out, think of it? What would Helena Moloney and Delia Larkin, founders of the Irish Women Workers Union in 1911 to support the rights of women workers, think of that? What would the founders of the Labour Party in my home town of Clonmel in 1912, just over 100 years ago, think of it? The Minister should consider his position and he should resign.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 April 2013.