Could I ask a brief question with respect to line 10? It just occurred to me that the redefinition says, "and the expression ‘workmen' means all persons employed", et cetera. Perhaps this is too much of the amateur detective, but what is the position of persons who are no longer technically employed, who would be, for example, either on strike or let go? Are there any circumstances in which somebody skilled in the art of the legal process could seek to interpret the word “employed” at the end of line 10 as meaning only those engaged in a job at that time? Are persons who might be on strike or who might be locked out employed? I would like to clear up that area because there may be a slightly grey area there in the eyes of some people. It would be most unfortunate if we were to create by accident any grey area. I hope the Minister sees the point I want to make.
Trade Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.
I do not blame the Deputy for asking that question considering the way the courts have really caused the problems that we are trying to deal with. I do not want anybody to get me wrong and say that I am blaming the courts for doing it, because they in their wisdom have decided that the definition that did exist did not cover certain categories of people and probably deserve to be complimented on that. I share the Deputy's concern. I would not like to see a situation developing where somebody might decide who was employed or unemployed. As far as we can establish that term "persons employed" does cover a person affected by a dispute. I assume the Deputy is talking about the possibility of a lay-off taking place——
Exactly.
—— as a result of that dispute or, alternatively, a person being on strike. My information is that the term "persons employed" covers that particular person if as a result of a dispute he or she is laid off or is on strike with the company.
The Minister would be satisfied on that?
We are fairly satisfied — satisfied as far as we can be.
Could I make another comment about the exclusions? As a general rule I agree with those who say that we should try to ensure that the spirit of Article 40 of the Constitution, that is, that all the people shall be treated equally in the eyes of the law, should be the spirit of our legislation and, therefore, anything which excludes persons from a Bill in a sense has to be justified. From that point of view in a sense it is regrettable that one has to include a reference like this. There are those who say that they should get special attention in that area. The Minister made a point which was interesting that, in fact, it is not simply this Bill that is involved here. That, possibly is justification for the inclusion, that it would involve a range of other legislation and that interference therefore with the section in that respect would hold the whole thing up, and certainly nobody would want to do that. I just want to mention that very briefly as something that we could return to on some other occasion, that there would be some positive discrimination in favour of those who would be excluded in situations like this from recourse to the normal protection.
The Deputy has a point that is of concern to me because everybody in this House shares respect and admiration for the Garda force and the Army. One has to take into consideration the security of the State and there are problems in bringing in an amendment. Because of other legislation these bodies as these Acts stand at present could not avail of the immunity we are offering. For that reason rather than complicating this further we are taking a step forward. I share the Deputy's sympathies towards them and Deputy Desmond talked about the desire of the representative bodies of the Garda to gain recognition on some forum such as the national pay talks or the national understanding. There are difficulties in that area and I am very well disposed towards finding a solution and seeing what can be done.
The Chair understands that there has been agreement about the suspension of the sitting at this stage.