Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I would also welcome a debate on the issue of a statement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I would particularly like if that kind of a debate could take place in a non-party political ambience. There are some serious matters which we need to discuss and about which people need to put their views clearly on the record. I believe strongly in the idea of parliamentary privilege, which is important because it allows Members of the Oireachtas to say certain things in the House which they cannot say outside the House. We have put in place ways of dealing with abuses of parliamentary privilege in each House. I do not agree with the suggestion in some newspapers that Members of the Oireachtas are only allowed to say things in the House which can be proven in an outside court. That was never the intention of the system of parliamentary privilege.

I support completely the idea behind the establishment of the Centre for Public Inquiry. It is important in a democracy for people to ask questions and test limits, etc. It would be very helpful if we could discuss the matter, but I do not know whether it will be possible to organise a debate at this stage. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes's suggestion that the Minister, Deputy McDowell, should make a statement and take some questions as part of a debate on the matter in this Chamber. I do not think it should be a political debate with contributions in turn from either side of the House. We need to be clear about the fundamental issues and principles in respect of this issue. As I do not understand the Minister's decision to put certain information on the public record, I cannot give a clear opinion on it. I do not know how that decision was made and how it should have been made. I am not sure that we have any rules to deal with such cases — perhaps that is the issue that needs to be addressed at some point. It is important that the House debate the matter.

I do not want people to assume the Minister was abusing his right to parliamentary privilege in some way just because they disagree with how he did something. I do not share that viewpoint. If a Minister feels strongly about something, he or she should do what he or she thinks is right. Only then should he or she be made answerable. That issue was raised by my colleague, Senator Norris, last week. If Ministers are asked whether they did right or wrong in such circumstances, they can answer questions as part of the proper processes to deal with that. People who are named should also have access to due process. If they feel they were not given fair play, they can make a complaint to the Oireachtas so the matter can be dealt with.

I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that it was heartening and encouraging that such a substantial number of people from all sides of the labour spectrum — business people and entrepreneurs felt the same as those involved with trade unions — took to the streets last Friday. I was not surprised that many business people had no problem with giving workers time off to make a statement because such people are interested in fairness, which involves fair competition and everybody working within the rules, regardless of what such rules happen to be. We have learned that we need to consider how we share the wealth in Irish society. Why are we creating wealth? For whom are we creating wealth? If, as a community, we do not have a clear understanding of how it should be shared, we are not going anywhere. We should not be interested in creating more and more wealth for a small number of people, but in sharing that wealth in a fair way. We need to deal with immigrants and other people who are working in our society, regardless of where they come from. It is clear, the way things are going, that such matters need to be examined.

I ask the House to consider that labour legislation has become more and more complex. All sorts of issues, such as health and safety regulations, are affecting the lives of workers. Salary negotiations have become more and more complex. Therefore, we should consider the possibility of recognising the trade union movement as a service to workers. It seems to me that going to work without having joined a union is so complex that it is like going to court without having hired a lawyer. We need to give serious thought to the legal recognition of trade unions. We need to give more authority to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. For example, it should be possible to compel witnesses to attend the meetings of the commission and the court. Similarly, the findings of such bodies should be made binding.