Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)

There should be no difficulty there. I thank my colleague, an Teachta Farrell, for bringing forward this legislation. I also thank her, as the Minister of State did, for all her work on this issue.

I cannot quite make sense of the Minister of State's amendment to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill for 24 months. I operate according to the principle that it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. The Minister of State said it is necessary to put it back to allow for consideration of complex legal issues. We are legislators and the committee process is supposed to allow us to do that and to deliberate. Nobody on the Minister of State's benches or these benches has ever bought legislation to the Dáil assuming that every word of it was perfect, nor would anyone be arrogant enough to do so. Ministers as well as members of the Opposition frequently say we recognise there will be a need to tease out issues, but that is what the committee process is for. It is regrettable that the Minister of State seeks to postpone the legislation.

The Minister of State also mentioned we could be in danger of collecting too much data, yet she nodded, as I did, when an Teachta Farrell went through how tortuous it can be to get that information because it is not collated. I respect the fact the Minister of State might be concerned there could be too much information collected but I do not think we are anywhere near that space yet. In fact, we are a million miles away from it.

Before I was elected, as Deputies will know, I worked as a trade union organiser. We used to say repeatedly to Government that the State should be careful to spend its money where workers' rights are protected. We in the trade union movement recognised the State is not just a big spender, but can be a driver of employment policy and a driver of and positive agent for workers' rights. Unfortunately, in the rush to privatise essential public services, using, as we knew it would, the vehicle of the Office of Government Procurement at times, taxpayers' money is spent in areas where workers' rights are not only not being protected but are being absolutely ripped up. There are companies in receipt of massive State contracts that think it is okay not to recognise trade unions. All they have to do is the minimum. All they have to do is write back and say, "We're paying the minimum wage." That is really the only legally enforceable right a worker has. The State could use its money to drive decent pay and conditions or it can take a hands-off approach, which is frequently what happens. I have been in the Labour Court with employers who have judgments and decisions against them and know there is no way they can be compelled. I know from the data, and it perhaps can be seen in newspapers as well, that companies with a really bad record on human rights know they can ramble back into another Government contract without there being any comeback at all. I have said in the Labour Court and in other forums that the irony of this is high-paid civil and public servants, who are union members and have benefited from trade union membership, are working on these contracts.

There are employers who will not implement Labour Court recommendations. A Labour Court recommendation is made and employers will not implement it because they do not have to. One arm of the State is providing the contract and giving big money to this company and another arm of the State is saying that they need to come halfway to do something decent for their workers. However, there is no compulsion on them to do so. While this is happening, the data is not being collated. If the Government has no data or information, then it cannot be the driver for decent terms and conditions for workers. These companies know that when the Government is spending the €22 billion, and they are getting some of it, there is a continuous pipeline that they are going to be able to tap into again and again. It does not matter if there are outstanding Labour Court judgments against them.

Deputy Nash will recall that I was on the picket line with Patricia King outside a major Department where the cleaners were being treated appallingly, but the Government was funding that company. The Government recognises trade unions but this company would not recognise the union. Not only would they not recognise the union, but they would not pay the appropriate rate. When the workers went on strike, the company threatened to lock them out and sack them. The women who were cleaning said to me that this is the Government, and the Government is paying for their jobs essentially. The Labour Court is an arm of the government, yet we have a situation whereby there is absolutely no onus on it to respect workers' rights. The State is a massive player.

Deputy Farrell's Bill seeks to ensure that the State has information to act ethically. It is literally giving the State and the Government the benefit of the doubt on the basis that perhaps some of the stuff that goes on happens because people are not aware it is going on in a systematic way. Effectively, Deputy Farrell's legislation gives the Government the data and information that it can use to then act in the interests of workers and, indeed, in upholding workers' rights. It does not make any sense for the State to have, as the Minister of State and other Members have said, sophisticated industrial relations machinery. We have said it many times, and it does exist. The Government is on a hiding to nothing if it gets a Labour Court recommendation that an employer simply will not fulfil. That employer knows, whether they fulfil the Labour Court recommendation or not, it can still get another lucrative Government contract. If this data is collected and analysed properly, the State will realise it is not acting in the interest of workers. It is not using its massive spending power in the market as a driver for decent terms and conditions and for workers' rights. However, equally it is using its money to fund organisations that are essentially disrespecting another arm of the State because Labour Court recommendations are being ignored. In some instances, we have established rates of pay in industries and those too are being ignored.

It does not any sense to put this off for 24 months because that time could be used by us in committee and in the Chamber to debate and tease out those complex legal issues. No legislation is ever without its consequences. We cannot simply snap our fingers and either change the law or bring in a new law that is not going to have consequences. That is the purpose of committees and debate. We were elected here to have those discussions. As it stands, the State does not use its massive spending power as a driver for decent terms and conditions for workers. Perhaps, some of the reason it does not is it is not aware to the extent to which this is going on. The collection of data would be useful in that regard but it equally would provide the State with valuable information to harness the power. It is €22 billion - that is not nothing - which is a lot of power that could be directed in a positive way. That is simply what an Teachta Farrell is seeking to do with this legislation. I urge the Minister of State to consider withdrawing her amendment and working with the Opposition on what is essentially decent and worthwhile legislation.

See this speech in context