John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Here we are with the collective bargaining legislation. I think this is the third time I have spoken on this legislation. I feel like hell has finally frozen over because I am on the Dáil floor and am about to agree with something that Jimmy Kelly, the Unite union official, said last month. He said that this legislation does not provide for mandatory collective bargaining and, strictly speaking, he is absolutely right. People who are intimate with the putting together of this legislation know that to be the case. Many predictions have been made here today about what this is going to do. Nobody really knows how it will pan out. It could pass off very quietly or it could be a disaster. The reason he said that is that under this legislation companies may choose to negotiate with their employees through an employer-sponsored association. That is a good thing. For that reason, this could be much worse.

This does not amount to what was promised in the first place, but it does allow some people to tick a box politically. I have spoken to many of the people involved in the Department and industry associations in particular and I understand how and why this legislation has been watered down along the way without causing any political embarrassment. One major industry association representative said to me that they can probably live with it, as long as it is not abused too badly by the trade unions.

My reservations stem mainly from the timing. At the same time this legislation was mooted politically, the Minister for Finance was taking steps to end what has been called the "double Irish" tax situation and the issues surrounding transfer pricing as they relate to US companies that do business in Ireland. The European Commission got involved, particularly with companies like Apple, and applied pressure on our Government to end that situation. My point was, and remains, that we should have waited to see how that pans out before we start passing legislation like this because this legislation might ultimately act as a disincentive to inward investment. The reason I say that stems from the reality of what I do every day, namely, to work on the fundamentals when it comes to improving the conditions as they apply to foreign direct investment.

In Waterford we are still in bad shape economically. It is improving a small bit, but it is not comparable to Dublin or Cork. The Minister will be well aware of this. In the last four years, I have, for example, kept the funding stream to the airport just about going, even when the commercial flights were not there. They are there now, thankfully. I have also made sure, after four years, that a regional director of the IDA was appointed. Thanks to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, that finally occurred. It is tooth and nail stuff, in many respects, as a Fine Gael Deputy dealing with a Fine Gael Government. In many cases it is very hard to initiate change to the fundamentals involved. It is very difficult to get Departments to move. In the case of the Port of Waterford, it was a question of making an argument regarding the salary of the new CEO, who will be in place in August. That was difficult enough, bringing the salary from an €85,000 cap up to €125,000. Arguments had to be made and it took months. It is an essential component of the issue with the Port of Waterford, a company which is fine as regards governance, but which has been driven into the ground. New personnel were needed to take over the helm.

All these things are the building blocks for inward investment and improving the conditions for US companies in particular, though not exclusively, which are looking at Ireland and the south east as a place to put their money. When it came to the nuts and bolts of this legislation, the background to it, the Ryanair case and industrial relations law in general, it is clear from talking to people that we have a voluntarist system in this country. There is a view among people who deal with labour law that there was no big problem in this area in the first place and that people, by and large - though there will be the odd exception - were dealing just fine with what transpired in labour law after the Ryanair decision. Their point is that when one is dealing with US companies in particular, and I have some experience with this, they are conservative. They take a certain view of mandatory labour laws and it is unwise to restrict the latitude that currently exists on either side when it comes to open negotiations. The example I would use is what happened early last year when it came to Bausch + Lomb in Waterford.

A negotiated pay reduction of 7.5% was agreed along with the ending of bonuses and an increase in the working week. It was hammered out by people who are steps ahead of some of the politicians who were involved in it. Reality dawned on both sides that they had to deal with each other. Unfortunately, those cuts had to be made but since then the company has made a massive investment here.

If this legislation is abused by unions keen to justify their own existence, we will need to be conscious of the potential impact it will have on our competitiveness and on our attractiveness as a location for foreign direct investment. This country is in a position to create additional reasons for a company not to locate here. It was not that long ago when the Deputies opposite were telling the Germans how to run their economy and we all know how that ended up. We need to be careful about getting the balance right between safeguarding people's working rights, political agendas and the creation of jobs when it comes to foreign direct investment. This legislation might seem very reasonable and quite benign to some Members of the coalition but it may make corporate types think twice about locating here. Only time will tell.

I reserve the right to draft amendments to the Bill and I hope and believe that they will be dealt with constructively by the Minister. I do not mean to be in any way patronising by saying that the way the Minister of State has dealt with this legislation has been fantastic. I believe Members on both sides of the House who have dealt with the Bill would agree with me in that regard. I have had a number of conversations with him and he knows where I am coming from on the Bill. I understand where he is coming from on this, politically and philosophically, but I hope he accepts that there is a genuine point of view on the other side. I appreciate the effort he and his officials have put into the legislation since he took it on.

See this speech in context