Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

In concluding this debate, I express my thanks to the 17 Deputies who spoke. The Bill is important and is certainly not a knee-jerk reaction. After all, it is just over two years since I wrote to the Taoiseach asking him to do something, in November 2005. Yesterday evening I outlined details of his letter to me in which he suggested that he agreed that ICTU was concerned. A previous version of this Bill existed and I received communication from the social partners asking me to withdraw my Bill so that the issue could be solved in the partnership talks. I deeply regret that that did not happen and that the Bill is not being allowed to proceed to Committee Stage, where all those who wanted to amend it would have the opportunity to make a contribution.

In the short time available to me, I would like to clarify a number of points. When I came into this House for the first time 20 years ago, I was told that when interpreting a Bill, it is important to interpret the entire Bill. One particular section cannot be taken and used out of context. This is advice that some of the younger Deputies should follow and they should avail of the courses on the interpretation of legislation that are provided by the commission. For example, section 2 of my Bill is qualified by section 3(2), which states: "Where the Government makes a declaration under this subsection that there is, in relation to a scheme to which this section applies, a public interest in negotiating a collective agreement between the public body concerned and an organisation that is representative of the profession concerned, providing for the terms ....." Therefore, there is a choice. I could have tried to strike down section 4, but I did not because I was not striking against competition.

The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, in a rather strange speech of 17 pages, devoted 14 pages to what one might call a hymn of praise to the Competition Authority and three and half pages to the Bill. He happened to get it wrong and I would like to clarify some points in law that are straightforward and clear. Article 81 and Article 82 of the EU Treaty only apply to transnational commerce. They do not apply directly into the State. They are translated into domestic law by the different member states. In the case involving Actors Equity, as part of SIPTU, and the Competition Authority, the latter clearly invoked a section of the domestic legislation. There is no point in sowing what is a dishonest confusion into the argument in that respect.

There may be many people who worry about bricklayers and stonecutters getting organised and referring to ancient guilds that might be established, as we heard last night. BATU is in existence and it has 9,000 members. It is in the building industry and it organises brick and stone layers, carpenters and joiners, as well as wood-cutting machinists. They enjoy a registered employment agreement so the Government is wasting its time if it wants to wish itself back to the 18th century, or if it wants to start advocating that little children should be climbing chimneys. Unions have every right to work against the process of casualisation. I believe that right is on the side of their argument. Reference was also made to farm workers. My party was founded in 1912 and we organised rural workers and there is a joint labour agreement that governs minimum rates.

In making his speech last night, the Fine Gael spokesperson said that there is a legal flaw in the Bill because it only amends the Competition Act 2002 and does not either the EU Treaty or the relevant EU regulations. That would be a nonsense because that is not what the Bill sets out to do. It sought to amend the Bill that gives compliance with the EU regulation and with the EU Treaty. He suggested that the Bill would be of no benefit to groups such as Actors Equity, as the Competition Authority's rule is now based on Article 81 of the EU Treaty and not the Competition Act 2002. This is completely wrong.

See this speech in context