I move:
That Seanad Éireann condemns the Government's handling of recent industrial relations issues; further condemns the Government's failure to address the issue of Trade Union recognition; and noting the public warnings from prominent Trade Union Leaders, expresses its concern that dissatisfaction among the national workforce may endanger the continuation of Partnership 2000 and put the negotiation of future national partnerships in jeopardy.
This is a timely Private Members' motion considering the amount of industrial unrest in the country. The record of this Government to date in handling industrial relations issues and in bringing forward plans for trade union recognition has been appalling. The Government has ignored ongoing trade union calls for tax reform and employment legislation. This is a demonstration of its lack of commitment to enhance social partnership, given the frequent warnings by trade union leaders that social partnership is weakening after 12 years and that the prospect of a new national wage agreement to succeed Partnership 2000 is fading fast.
The Government must restore confidence in social partnership by addressing the key points of this motion. First, the upsurge in industrial action has cast a shadow over the relative lack of unrest in Ireland during the national wage agreements, which have contributed so much to the country's present prosperity. The biggest dispute involves the Garda, which marks a clear inability on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to act prudently and in a manner which embraces the tradition of partnership and negotiation built up by successive Governments in the past decade. Despite ongoing promptings by Deputy Upton and calls from the GRA, it has taken the Minister until now to consider the archaic and unfair restrictions on the Garda's ability to negotiate. The restrictions that govern Garda were imported in the 1920s when the State was emerging from civil war. Circumstances have changed since then and we now live in a nation which has been deeply enhanced by the ability of workers and employers to negotiate the structure of social partnership. The last Government extended social partnership status to key voluntary and community organisations representing the poor and marginalised. These groups enhanced the social partnership process, and including Garda representatives at some level in this process would further develop future national agreements.
Gardaí should also be allowed to choose to join a trade union and to be represented in negotiations on their pay and conditions. Most of our EU counterparts have developed mechanisms to allow members of their national police forces to negotiate. Given our partnerships, there is no reason for Ireland to lag behind in this regard.
The unrest among local authority craft workers is also of considerable concern, though I do not condone their actions, which did not adhere to proper procedures. That unrest is an indication of emerging discontent among the general workforce. The fact that the majority of workers have accepted very moderate pay increases to ensure Ireland's economic wellbeing is at the heart of this unrest. The failure to invest in workers to ensure that their skills are always up to date and marketable in a competitive, market driven economy is linked to this.
The Ryanair dispute this spring grew from the refusal to allow workers the right to be represented in negotiations by a trade union official. Management in Ryanair undermined the industrial relations machinery which has served us so well in the past. The Labour Court meant nothing to Ryanair and it took intervention at the highest level before conciliation would be considered. We do not need another Ryanair dispute; we need legislation which will give workers the right to be represented at negotiations by expertly trained and informed trade union officials. We must uphold the merits in our trade union machinery.
This year the Labour Party brought forward a fair and balanced Bill on trade union recognition which was based on the success of social partnership, which in turn was based on the ability of worker and employer representatives to negotiate and compromise. It was regrettable that the Government did not accept that Bill and it is even more regrettable that no efforts have been made to advance the rights of workers to have representation in negotiations. Employers can no longer cite the lack of trade union recognition in Britain as a reason for Irish workers not to have representation. The British system has moved on and a White Paper is now before Parliament which sets out mechanisms for trade union recognition. Irish workers have a constitutional right to join a trade union, and the anti-trade union attitudes of some companies diminishes and devalues that right. We need legislation to enhance that right. The Government should move forward on this issue, despite the fact that it stamped on the Labour Party Bill on trade union recognition.
The December budget was a kick in the teeth for social partnership. The tax package was bad for the majority of workers and created a disincentive to work. It was particularly bad for small business. Trade unions and representatives of the unemployed and those living in poverty had made it clear in advance of the budget, and during the negotiations for Partnership 2000, that tax breaks must be targeted at low and middle income earners. However, the Minister for Finance selected the highest paid workers for tax cuts, and this undermined the important relationships that have emerged between workers and the Government for the last 12 years.
Over 63 per cent of Irish workers still pay tax at the standard rate. If the majority of workers are to benefit from tax reform, the emphasis of reform must focus on increasing personal allowances and widening the bands to prevent people from moving into the upper band at an early stage. Huge cuts in capital gains and acquisition taxes mean nothing to the majority of workers and are of no value to them; but, of course, they benefit the fat cats.
I am concerned about the current situation of tax reform on the incentive to work. The direction of tax reform is crucial in terms of how a person determines whether it is worth taking up a job. While the implementation of the minimum wage will increase the incentive to work, tax reform is also essential. A minimum wage alone will not diminish the disincentive to work nor will it lift low paid workers from poverty traps. A minimum wage package will only be effective if it is coupled with tax reforms targeted at the low paid.
The budgetary tax reform measures which became effective in April give in the region of an extra £1 per week only to a single person on an hourly pay rate of £4.40. For a married couple without children where only one spouse works and earns the minimum wage, the tax changes delivered through the December budget result in a weekly income reduction of about £1 per week. That is a disgrace.
Minimum wage and tax reform packages are inextricably linked, a view vindicated in the OECD submission to the Minimum Wage Commission. Tax reform must centre on substantially increasing personal allowances and widening the bands. If the Government does not adopt this approach to tax reform in the autumn and gives a repeat performance of the December budget, it will have made a farce of its commitment to a minimum wage. While improvements in take home pay are essential to improving the spirit and well-being of workers, there is also a considerable need to look at wider issues around profit sharing, better in-work training and the flat rate increase in pay. The Labour Party is on record as saying it supports better rewards for workers through profit sharing and flat rate increases. I put it to the Government to come clean with its policy on these issues and to state if it is willing to move on them.
Another aspect of giving some rewards to our workers is through the better in-work conditions. The recent report from the Commission on the Family pointed to the shortfalls in the area of child care and the need to put in place structures which would make child care more accessible and affordable. The issue of parental leave should be part and parcel of this package, but sadly once again the Government did not listen to the trade unions on this issue when it came to publish its Bill on parental leave last week or to the view expressed in the Seanad yesterday. As Senator Cox knows, we had a great discussion on the minimalist attitude taken by the Government in introducing the measures.
I condemn the Government for paring back on the rights afforded by the directive on parental leave. The EU directive provided that leave could be taken until a child was aged eight years but the Government managed to reduce the age to five years. It is also disheartening that no provision was made to put in place some form of payment for parents while on leave. The take up of parental leave by parents on low pay is likely to be badly affected by the lack of support measures. Given that the majority of people pay tax only at the standard rate and, therefore, are not very well paid, the take up of the parental leave scheme will be low.
There are many instances where this Government has failed abysmally to build on social partnership. I contend the principles of Partnership 2000, namely, inclusion, employment and competition, are fading fast and, increasingly, more people are feeling excluded and disenchanted with their employment. This debate is happening at a crucial time when the Government is framing its plans for this year's budget. If it is clear about wanting to continue our strong economic performance, it must demonstrate a commitment to those who have given us the climate for such performance in the first place.
