Derek McDowell (Labour)

Many members of the Labour Party have an ambivalent attitude to this legislation and the 2001 Act that preceded it. It is, in essence, an admission of failure on the part of the partnership bodies — the employers' representatives, the trade unions and the Government — to reach agreement at national level to deal with the issue of union recognition. This legislation provides a mechanism to get around that. There is now an enforceable procedure of arbitration in those cases. It is a reasonably adequate second best but it is a second best.

It is remarkable that after 17 years of partnership, the fact that representatives of workers spend hours in Government Buildings negotiating issues of great importance, which range from housing through social affairs to workplace issues, is now accepted as the norm at national level but we find it impossible to agree a mechanism whereby it can happen at local workplace level. We still cannot find it in ourselves to pass legislation, if that is necessary, to ensure employers recognise the basic right of employees to be represented by a trade union of their choice. Purists would insist that if an individual worker wishes to be represented by a trade union and wants the trade union to negotiate on his or her behalf, he or she is entitled to do that. However, most people will acknowledge that there must be a critical mass of workers in a workplace who want that right in order to make it work at a practical level. It is a pity we have been unable to secure agreement in this regard and, in default of agreement, that we do not feel able to legislate on the issue.

It is incorrect to state that people do not have the right to join a union; they do. It has long been established in law and is also a constitutional right. It is also established that people have the right not to join a trade union or to dissociate from a union, if that is their choice. There is no power in this country to enforce a closed shop as there is in the United Kingdom. However, there is no right in this country to recognition, the right to be represented by a trade union. It is still possible for employers, while acknowledging that people are entitled to join a trade union, to blithely or wilfully refuse to negotiate with the trade union on behalf of workers. That is something I and my party consider unacceptable.

In the absence of agreement at national level to deal with it, a mechanism of the type provided for in the 2001 Act was inevitable and represents a reasonable compromise. However, there are people in the trade union movement and in the Labour Party who probably feel that accepting a second best will make it impossible to achieve the desired outcome, namely, recognition of trade unions.

This is, in a sense, a reflection of our corporate culture, if I can call it that, with regard to partnership issues and where we stand vis-À-vis Boston and Berlin. This Bill is firmly in mid-Atlantic in that it is not in the tradition of corporatist Germany where, essentially, matters are dealt with by large trade unions and employer bodies. Likewise, most of us do not feel comfortable with the tradition in the United States where workers are dealt with on an individual basis, largely without corporate representation by trade unions or otherwise. The Bill is largely a compromise.

The Bill shortens the time limits. If the legislation is to work, it is important that the time limits are realistic. There have been cases where employers have gone through the mechanisms provided for in the 2001 Act but in many cases there was a suspicion in the workforce that there was never any real intention to carry through on the recommendations that were ultimately made and that it was, in fact, a delaying process. I welcome the tighter time limits in this Bill. It is less likely that the process provided for will be deliberately used as a delaying mechanism by employers.

The Bill is, in a sense, a stick mechanism in a carrot and stick situation. It is intended, I hope, not to be used. If employers know there is a mechanism whereby they can be obliged to go through what amounts to a compulsory arbitration process, they will negotiate. The less often this Bill and its predecessor Act are brought into play, the better for all concerned.

I welcome the prohibition of victimisation in sections 8 and 9. The definition in the Bill is broad and it will be underpinned by a code of practice. As far as I know the code has not yet been published but work is being done on it by the Labour Relations Commission. I am not quite clear about how exactly it will work. I appreciate that the prohibition of victimisation provision can only be invoked in the context of this Bill or of the 2001 process and that it is not intended as a general prohibition of victimisation. In his response, will the Minister of State elaborate on how it will come into play and how it will relate to the provisions of this Act rather than the general prohibition on victimisation and discrimination as contained in the equality legislation?

I read the report of the debate in the Dáil much of which dealt with the general issue of partnership. There appears to be a seething resentment among some politicians, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, regarding the partnership process, which many see as sidelining the Houses. I, too, am somewhat ambivalent on this issue. We in the Labour Party have a particular difficulty in so far as we have a close relationship with the trade union movement which is locked in negotiations in Government buildings. On the other hand, as part of the Opposition we also have to discharge our responsibility to oppose. While we empathise, work and consult regularly with our trade union colleagues, we nonetheless are obliged then to leave our meeting rooms and come into the Houses and oppose what has just been agreed to in Government buildings.