It does not permit time for consultation, for representations, discussion or reflection on its various aspects. It is ludicrous to suggest that a Bill such as the one before us — which is complex in that it interferes with existing arrangements — can be properly dealt with in a couple of hours in this House. I believe further that we are not doing our job as legislators in putting through legislation in this manner. I want to protest in the strongest possible manner at the approach adopted in this case. It is clear that the draft of the Bill was not even available last Thursday. It is further clear, from a reading of the Bill, that it has been put together in quite a slipshod manner. I do not blame the parliamentary draftsmen in this regard. The normal procedures imply that a Bill will have a Second Reading and that some time thereafter amendments will be put down, discussed on Committee Stage, when the parliamentary draftsmen will be afforded an opportunity of improving it as it progresses. No such opportunity exists at this stage unless we can provide amendments today. If the Government insist on putting through this Bill today I do not believe it will be in the interests of the country that it should form part of our permanent legislation. Therefore, I put down an amendment this morning proposing that the Bill would lapse after six months at which stage, if in the light of experience at that time the Bill is found to be in good order and workable, we can have a further full and proper debate here and we can re-enact the Bill. I put down that amendment proposing a lapse after six months with that in mind, so as to ensure that at the end of this year or early next year we shall have an opportunity of a proper, full debate. Indeed it might be said that at that stage we shall have the benefit of six months operation of the provisions of the Bill as at present drafted.
The question arises as to whether the provisions of the Bill may serve to encourage strikes, the general position in this country being that, where there is a trade dispute, unemployment benefit is not payable to the workers participating in such a dispute. This goes back to the beginning of the century, the idea being that the payment of unemployment benefit might encourage the prolongation of such disputes. Quite rightly, I believe, there is a provision that such workers' dependants will not be left in a situation in which they will suffer as a result and such dependants are therefore able to obtain supplementary welfare. However the basic provision in this country is that no benefit is paid while a strike continues. Lest we might think we are unique or that it might be suggested that this has an exceptional record in this situation it is relevant to point out that in all EEC countries workers involved in industrial disputes are precluded from receiving unemployment benefit. If I might synopsise, the general thinking in Europe in this regard is that this is so because workers' unemployment in that situation is regarded as being voluntary and is therefore considered their responsibility rather than that of the State.
The general thinking in Europe is that this is not so because unemployment in that situation is regarded as involuntary and, whatever about the philosophy behind it, it is relevant to note that this is generally the position right throughout the EEC. There is in Belgium provision whereby in exceptional cases benefit may be paid to workers involved in an industrial dispute where the employer is at fault either in failing to observe agreed dispute procedures or a lock-out takes place before such procedures have been exhausted. That is the only provision in Europe which provides for an exception to the general rule of no benefit being payable during the course of a strike. That has been the position here since the beginning of the century, modified to ensure that the dependants of workers on strike do not suffer adverse consequences as a result of that strike and so they are able to claim supplementary welfare during the course of the dispute.
We shall have to think again and examine our philosophy if we are making a major change which this Bill, as drafted, may do. We will have to consider the effect on our industrial relations and the effect on development if the result of the Bill is, unintentionally perhaps, to encourage strikes because of the payment of unemployment benefit to those on strike. I can accept to some degree the good faith of the Minister when he talks about hard cases. I do not believe he wants to open up the situation to abuse. While I have to question the background and the circumstances in which the commitment was made, I still believe the Minister will probably try to ensure that the tribunal and its decisions will fail in only very isolated cases.
There is an old adage which says that hard cases make bad law. The Minister mentioned some recent instances in which apparently injustice was done to workers. I do not propose to discuss the merits of the global dispute or, indeed, of the Comer dispute. I do not know all the facts and so I do not think it would be proper for the House to argue the facts. That is not the way in which this House operates. There may be instances which give rise to injustice. I do not know. The latest instance in Comer was one in which a specific commitment was given by the Minister. Whether he examined and adjudicated on the merits of the case I do not know. I shall certainly not try to do so. The facts are known to those involved and, as in many industrial relations situations, they are quite complex. My basic approach is that hard cases make bad law and any attempt to introduce provisions to meet such situations will have to be very carefully considered and given such careful deliberation as will ensure that such provisions will not be used or abused for other purposes.
This brings me back to the earlier point I made about legislation being rushed through here. We are not giving this Bill the careful deliberation it deserves. The Bill is not — indeed it could not be — carefully drawn because of the time factor involved and I see a danger of the Bill being used and abused for purposes other than those intended. Amendments are required to social welfare legislation generally. There are a number of areas which need to be carefully examined and amending legislation introduced. If there are genuine cases where workers are treated unfairly we shall have to examine how injustice can be remedied but I do not believe the problem is resolved by rushing through here a Bill which can be abused. What we need is an examination of the various problems and a Bill designed to deal with those problems. We know there are abuses. We have a situation today in which employees, because of income tax, PRSI and tax rebates, are better off on social welfare benefits than they would be if they did a full week's work. Is the Minister aware of that? Is he concerned about it? Does he intend to do anything about it? If we want to get the country going again, a country of which we can be proud, surely we cannot stand by and accept a situation where people are better off on social welfare than they would be if they were working. The same argument applies to what is known as the three-day week where in certain situations people drawing three days' pay and three days' unemployment are better off than they would be if they worked a five-day week.
I ask the same questions in regard to that situation. Is the Minister concerned about it? Can he do anything about it? The instances I have mentioned need to be carefully examined and the necessary steps taken to ensure that that type of situation in which people are actually encouraged not to work is ended. What we need in the social welfare area at the moment is not legislation purporting to deal with just one problem, legislation rushed through here in one day, but rather a review of all the problems. The manner in which we are expected to deal with this Bill serves to highlight the dangers of making political promises without regard to the appalling consequences that may ensue. It serves to highlight the dangers of rushing in with an apparent solution without teasing out the consequences. What should our aims in this area be? I believe that in a situation where we have more than 150,000 unemployed our main aim must be to get more people at work. Certainly one of our aims must be to have as few people as possible on strike. For that purpose we need a proper industrial relations environment, changes in the attitude of management in many cases and changes on the other side of the fence also. We need those changes so that in the overall interest of the country we will have a better industrial relations environment.
How can we justify spending hundreds of millions of pounds to encourage people to set up industries here unless we can at all times be constantly aware of this problem and trying to ensure that our industrial relations environment is improved? It is worth stating, although it is a truism, that without employers there would not be any employees and unless we can continue to encourage the establishment of industry here, unless we can continue to convince people that workers and employers can provide a proper working environment, we are doomed. It is worth making that point in the context of this Bill. What we are talking about when we are dealing with the payment of unemployment benefit is not just a glib situation of the State paying people. We are talking about getting our workers to contribute through PAYE to others who are not working. When one sees demands on the public purse for one reason or another it must always be borne in mind that whatever comes out of the public purse has to be put into it and that a major contributor to the public purse today is the PAYE sector. Any further demands on the public purse will inevitably result in greater burdens on that PAYE sector. I do not believe it is in the interest of those who are working and paying PAYE that we should indiscriminately pay moneys out of the public purse if that may result in an extra burden on them.
We should remember when we are discussing this Bill that we are not talking about the employer paying out money, we are talking about the State paying out money in certain situations. If I was asked for a synopsis or label of my views in regard to this type of legislation, a label that I would fairly accept is that I am pro-worker but anti-strike. My outlook in discussing any legislation will be motivated by that approach. In a strike situation it is important that the focus and emphasis should be on the Labour Court and its various bodies to find a settlement. I see a danger in the Bill, as it is drafted, that that focus and emphasis will swing from the Labour Court to the new social welfare tribunal. I see a danger that the initial reaction of anyone involved in a strike or a trade dispute situation will be to get this tribunal to adjudicate as soon as possible on the rights and wrongs and ensure that, if possible, a finding is obtained against the employer so that social welfare benefits will be obtained. If that happens, is there not a danger that strikes and trade disputes will be prolonged? Is there not a danger that the attention in regard to a strike initially will be focused on this row as to who was right or wrong, as to the entitlement of the workers to unemployment benefit? In that situation the whole emphasis will swing away from the Labour Court and its associated bodies who are there for the purpose of seeking a fair settlement to the dispute along established and well tried dispute settling procedures.
Since 1946 we have had industrial legislation which set up and operated a voluntary system to provide for conciliation and settlement of a dispute through the Labour Court, Rights Commissioners and conciliation services. The system has proved very successful in what is agreed to be a difficult industrial relations environment. As the Bill is drafted, a tribunal will decide on the reasonableness of an employer's behaviour in a trade dispute. Once it does so, is there any reason why an employee or a trade union would bother discussing their grievance any further at conciliation or at the Labour Court? They will already have in many cases an adjudication on their situation and why then should they bother with the Labour Court? That must be a major worry to anybody who is interested in finding a fair solution to the problem mentioned by the Minister and who, in the short time available, has been considering the effects of this Bill. We must ensure that Pandora's Box is not opened and that tried and tested industrial relations procedures are not thrown out the door. We must ensure in our efforts to provide a solution for hard cases that this is not the effect.
On that basis I put down a series of amendments which I believe will allow a solution to be found for the hard cases but, at the same time will prevent the new procedures from being abused for the purpose of generally encouraging or prolonging strikes. Every Deputy in the House wants to see our people at work, workers getting a fair deal from their employers and employers getting a fair return for a fair day's pay, and proper industrial relations. At the same time, there is a feeling that we should try to seek a solution in which justice will be evident to all. On that basis, let us ensure that the Bill we are putting through will deal only with injustices in industrial relations. We must ensure that existing procedures will be used before there is recourse to the tribunal, that claims will have been examined by both deciding and appeals officers of the Department.
If the tribunal are to consider the case of the employer and to adjudicate thereon, is it not incorrect that the conduct on the other side of the fence should not be opened and looked at so that the reasonableness or otherwise of the employee will be looked at? This makes sense, and as a former practising lawyer I have always felt that one does not get the full sense of a case or the full story until one has heard both sides. Therefore, the tribunal should be directed to examine specifically both sides and the reasonableness of the case on both sides.
More important, I believe we should provide that the emphasis will not be taken away from the Labour Court and their associated bodies. We must continue to provide every encouragement to employers and employees to have recourse to the Labour Court in their search for solutions. I am afraid that the Bill as drafted may result in the tribunal supplanting the Labour Court at least in the early stages of disputes and that the Labour Court efforts to look for early solutions will be hampered. Therefore, I should not like the tribunal to make decisions unless and until it can be shown that the machinery under the trade union Acts will have been availed of, that the officials of the Labour Court will have been consulted in the interests of good industrial relations, and that it has been shown and proved that either employer or employee has not done that. If workers are prepared to resort to the Labour Court and to co-operate fully with industrial relations procedures, should not the employers be subjected to the same procedure if they are shown not to have been willing to have recourse to the Labour Court, and vice versa? In my view it would be improper that this tribunal would supplant the Labour Court.
I am concerned about the reference in the Bill to the findings of the tribunal being final and conclusive. I know of no law passed in this country which provides that the findings of such a body should be final and conclusive, and it is improper that we should ever provide that the findings of a non-judicial tribunal should be final and conclusive — there must be recourse to the courts on points of law.
I am concerned about the review procedure. There is a provision that an application for a review shall be by a person interested, but the Bill does not specify who is to be "a person interested". I would be anxious to ensure that the Minister, who represents the public purse, would be entitled to a review if a material change of circumstances occurs. After all, it is the Minister who will be making any payments that will result from the findings of the tribunal.
I am concerned about the lack of definition of the position of chairman. The Bill clearly lays down that two members from both employers' and employees' representatives will be selected to act on the tribunal, but the Bill is silent on the position and the qualifications of chairman. It does not set out his term of office. I have already referred to the hasty manner in which the Bill was drafted, and because the tribunal will have quasi-judicial functions I suggest that the chairman should be a judge of the Circuit Court or the High Court. The Bill provides for the taking of evidence on oath in certain circumstances and it lays down that a person giving false evidence before the tribunal will be guilty of perjury. In that situation it is important that the chairman would be a person who would be able to adjudicate personally, who would have judicial experience in adjudicating. That is why I suggest the Bill should provide that the chairman be a judge of either court.
Another major point relates to the time for debating the Bill in this House. I would have wished that the Bill would have gone through Second Stage today and the remaining Stages at some future date. It appears now that we are not to have a Committee Stage. I know that the Dáil is rising tomorrow and I am aware of the Government's intention of ensuring that this Bill goes through this House before the recess. In that situation the Bill should have a time limit of six months and be amended accordingly. It may be that the Bill, particularly if it is amended on the lines on which I think it should be amended, will be an effective Bill and will not have the effect of encouraging strikes, as I fear it will. If that is the situation, well and good. If we have isolated the injustices and ensured that we have the machinery to cope with them then, on the renewal of this Bill, we would have very little difficulty with it. We would also have the benefit of the six months period of operation, we would have had an opportunity of deliberating with various bodies and hearing their views and we would be able to put through a Bill in the normal way to form part of our permanent social welfare code. But I do not believe that that can be done today. The solution, therefore, is to put a time limit on the Bill and to take up the matter again towards the end of that time limit.
The position, therefore, is that I will be formally proposing amendments along those lines later and I would hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept those amendments, perhaps not in the words in which they are put because I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but perhaps he would accept the spirit of the amendments. As the Bill stands there is a positive danger that it will achieve far more than the purpose for which it was intended, that it will encourage strikes when our whole minds should be devoted to discouraging them. In that situation I would not feel as worried about the Bill if the amendments which I propose are accepted by the Minister.