Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

This is an extraordinary situation, underscored by the fact that I understand this to be the first debate of its kind since the foot and mouth crisis threatened our entire economic well-being. That issue united the country and I believe there is now extraordinary attention on this issue, well beyond the focus of a mere industrial dispute. What is happening? Why, as the Minister informed the House, is our economic well-being under threat? The ability to move some 30% of our imports and exports, the capacity of industry to supply itself and to move its goods off this island and the stability of social partnership itself are threatened. They are threatened because a single, maverick company has taken it upon itself, unilaterally, to demolish 20 years of social partnership and to ignore the well-functioning, well-constructed and highly respected labour relations institutions which have been carefully crafted to solve issues on the basis of partnership and mutual respect. They are threatened because one company has decided the success we have achieved in respect of partnership is to be set aside and that its greedy objectives can only be achieved on the basis of conflict, rather than partnership.

What has the Government's response been? The Government has stated it can do nothing. The Taoiseach said as much last week. Perhaps, as the Minister has suggested to the House, it is entirely coincidental that the Taoiseach's declaration of impotence coincided with the company's action to send in so-called security personnel to intimidate workers. This was the first time for decades that such actions have been seen in any industrial relations dispute. Thankfully, as the House has been informed, those security personnel have been removed. Finally perhaps, the voice of reason has even reached the ears of that company's board of directors.

I do not believe the Government is impotent. I believe it is not trying. What can it do? The leader of the Labour Party indicated our international rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. He informed this House that there is a requirement under Article 91 of that convention, to which this State, every other member state of the European Union, as well as the European Union itself as an entity, are all parties. It is an internationally binding treaty which states that a genuine link must exist between the state whose flag a ship flies and the ship itself. The Minister has indicated, as did the Taoiseach previously, that because of European treaty requirements that allow for the right of establishment in another member state, we are impotent to act under Article 91. We reject that. If there is a will to do it, we can certainly argue that the treaties of the European Union cannot be used to undermine the clear intention of the UN convention, to which we are signatories.

It is amusing that the Government feigns impotence in respect of an issue of such critical importance given that it can act unilaterally regarding other matters. For example, we allowed workers from the newly acceded states free access to work in Ireland from 1 May 2004 but we unilaterally decided not to give them access to social welfare benefits for two years. This is being challenged in the European courts. I am not saying it is a good or bad decision but it is one we decided for ourselves. Members on this side of the House are now demanding that the Government show the same robustness in this case and not allow the company to reflag its vessels. If Irish Ferries wants to take us to the European Court of Justice, so be it — we will defend the rights of the workers. We certainly have a very arguable position if the Government has any bottle or is willing to prevent reflagging and take a stand that the company's actions are unconscionable.

I was on "Questions and Answers" last night and the nation was shocked by the views expressed by a distinguished economist. They are resonant of a view prevailing in some economic circles in this city and country to the effect that we are somehow moving towards the ultra-liberal position where workers are not partners in building an economy but rather tools to be manipulated, discarded and utilised at will. That will not wash with the people of Ireland, including the workers.

It is not true, as the Minister indicated, that this case does not apply to other areas of employment because we have noted that it does in cases that have arisen in our clinics. I do not know whether the Minister has noted it but he should because he is the Minister responsible for employment. In the construction industry, sectoral agreements are being set aside and people are expected to work for all the 48 hours to which they are entitled at a flat-rate minimum wage. Workers who have built up a package of entitlements are being told they can pack their bags if they do not like the conditions that obtain and that they will be displaced with people who are prepared to work on the minimum wage.

This is a defining moment for the State. We have built economic success and come close to full employment but the next phase of our economic development will either continue the good practices of respecting all the actors in social partnership or will be built on a maverick form of exploitation which now seems to have currency. There are too many people watching from the sidelines to see how this will pan out. My final call is to IBEC and the employers, who need to take a stand on one side or another of this argument. If the social partnership model of respect, operating through the institutions we have established in the State to resolve matters of dispute, is not the way forward, we will enter an era of conflict in which people are dismissed and regarded as mere cogs.

Irrespective of the crocodile tears and hand-wringing we have noted on the part of Members on the Government benches, including a succession of Ministers, they are complicit in allowing this dismantling to happen.

See this speech in context