Tá áthas agus bród orm labhairt sa díospóireacht thábhachtach seo ar an mBille seo.
As a member of the Irish labour movement, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Bill. The Trade Union Recognition Bill is comprehensive and prudent. It was researched over many months by my colleague, Deputy Broughan, and presented to the House at a time when the issue of trade union recognition is at the heart of a serious industrial dispute at Ryanair. The Bill is an important measure towards deepening social partnership.
Social partnership will not continue in the long-term unless it is underpinned and deepened by industrial relations legislation to deal with a number of key issues facing workers in the trade union movement today. While trade union recognition is one of these issues, it is by no means the only one. Issues such as equality in the workplace, working hours, child care leave, low pay, the introduction of a minimum wage and Sunday trading are also of concern to our labour force and need to be addressed. However, given the
Government's head-in-the-sand attitude to the Trade Union Recognition Bill espoused by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, last night I hold out little hope of progress in these areas under the current Administration.
Some Members believe social partnership has been achieved and that nothing more needs to be done to ensure its continued contribution to our economic well-being. They could not be more wrong. Social partnership has been a cornerstone of our economic success in recent years. Since 1987 workers have had the discipline and foresight to agree to moderate pay increases and changed work practices that have made our economy increasingly competitive and more attractive to indigenous and international commercial enterprises. During the negotiations for Partnership 2000 workers and trade unionists made it abundantly clear that social partnership needed to be developed and deepened to ensure the continued support of the labour force.
The Trade Union Recognition Bill develops and deepens social partnership at a time when it is under great strain. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, and the rest of the Government are aware of the serious concerns of the trade union movement which have been expressed in the Ryanair dispute. The behaviour of the airline's management is threatening the basis of our economic success and demands action from the Government as a matter of urgency. The Government does not seem to understand the difference between actions and words. Well meaning words by the Taoiseach will not resolve the current crisis.
My party colleague, Deputy Broughan, has presented the Government with a golden opportunity to restore equilibrium to social partnership in the form of the Trade Union Recognition Bill, but the Government rejected it out of hand. By its actions, the current Administration is contributing to the current unease. The Government has chosen to deepen the crisis rather than take steps to resolve it. That course of action — or, more accurately, inaction — is incomprehensible and inept.
Regarding the Taoiseach's attitude to the Trade Union Recognition Bill, Brendan Hayes of SIPTU stated today that "the future of partnership depends on the choice he makes". We know the choice the Government and the Taoiseach have made and they must now face the serious consequences of the short-sighted rejection of the Bill. How can the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste expect the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs to retain the confidence of the trade union movement after his rejection of this Bill and his humiliating and hypocritical rejection of another Bill introduced by Deputy Broughan to give statutory rights to workers in respect of Sunday trading. Those actions send out the strong message that the continued development of social partnership is not a concern for the Government. It is a dangerous and worrying signal that has serious repercussions for industrial relations. I am dismayed the Government does not appreciate the effect of its actions. After the débacle involving credit unions, initiated by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, it should come as no surprise that this Government does not care a whit for the concerns of ordinary working people.
I will address some of the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. When one looks beyond the invective and political point scoring in which he indulged, there was little substance to his speech. In relation to the Ryanair dispute we yet again got fine words and no action from the Government. The Minister of State stated "For the Government's part, we will not hesitate to use such powers as we have to contribute to the settlement of the dispute". Does he not realise the Government has no powers to resolve this dispute? When faced with a truculent and stubborn employer like Ryanair, the Government or the workers have no legislative recourse to action. Deputy Broughan's Bill would resolve this legislative lacuna.
Will the Minister of State explain why, when presented with a Bill that would enable the Labour Court to impose a rational and measured solution to a long running and bitter industrial dispute, he rejects it? Given the attitude of the Minister of State to this Bill, what alternative strategy does he intend to introduce to address our current legislative vacuum?
Last night the Minister of State stated that trade union disputes were not "a perpetual problem". He quoted figures regarding the number of such disputes that have appeared before the Labour Court in recent years to support his claim that trade union recognition is not a pressing issue. He reported that at least 43 disputes involving trade union recognition were before the Labour Court in recent years and yet he still maintains the nonsense that this does not need legislative action. How many more workers does the Minister of State want on strike or engaged in other industrial action before he will give this matter the priority it deserves? I am dismayed that a Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs can so lightly cast aside the serious issue of trade union recognition disputes. It points to a Minister seriously out of touch with the trade union movement.
I also draw the Minister of State's attention to the statement issued today by Brendan Hayes of SIPTU who criticised him for misrepresenting the trade unions movement's position on the question of trade union recognition in his speech last night. Mr. Hayes stated:
SIPTU supports the terms and the spirit of the Trade Union Recognition Bill. The Minister's claims to the contrary are quite simply wrong.
We find it unacceptable that the Minister is rejecting the contents of the Bill and consider this action a betrayal of the spirit of Partnership. To present his stance as representative of the Trade Union movement's position is insulting but hardly surprising from a Minister who reneged on a promise to Retail Trade Workers to deal with the question of Sunday Trading.
This is one of the most stinging rebukes of a Minister that I can recall from a senior trade unionist. It follows statements by Des Geraghty, SIPTU's vice president, regarding the future of Partnership 2000 after the carve-up the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevey, had the temerity to call a budget last December. Let there be no doubt that the slashing of capital gains tax, the bias towards high income earners in the budget, the Finance Bill déba cle and the rejection of the Trade Union Recognition Bill have established a serious stand-off between this Government and workers. I am dismayed that the Government fails to recognise the damage it is doing and am equally disappointed action is not contemplated to redress the situation.
This is a timely and comprehensive Bill. It should be accepted by the Government as a progressive development in our industrial relations law. That the Government has refused to do so represents a lost opportunity to give statutory recognition to the rights of workers to be represented by a trade union if they choose. The Government's decision also places at risk the future of social partnership. At the conclusion of this debate ordinary Irish workers will know of the Government's disregard for their concerns.