Brendan Ryan (Labour)

More people are at work but it is extraordinary that in a country in which the numbers in employment are increasing, the numbers unemployed are also increasing. In addition, the number of people leaving the workforce is increasing and it is substantially higher than four years ago.

The second issue is that approximately two thirds of workers in non-unionised workforces would join a union if their management would not penalise them for doing so. That is the product of research conducted by people in UCD and I have no reason to doubt it. It is extraordinary that one pillar of the partnership process, namely, employers, is trying to prevent its employees from being part of another pillar. That is the perception and I seek a debate in which those who claim to understand employers better than I do state clearly that they would support the idea that nobody should be penalised in employment or in promotion because of their membership of a trade union. That would be a good idea and I look forward to hearing all my colleagues' state their support.

In addition, I seek a debate on the attitude of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to partnership. The Department refused to disclose reports about conditions in centres for asylum seekers claiming they were commercially sensitive. It took a decision by the Information Commissioner to release that information. The reports were politically, not commercially, sensitive because they showed that many of the centres were being run very badly. I refer to the Thornton Hall issue. Residents in the area cannot obtain a single straight answer from the Department, which apparently will use its powers to ignore planning laws, zoning and local communities. I do not know how we can have a serious partnership.

I do not wish to be picky but how can the House pass a motion calling for a continuation of the practice of the Leader replying to the Order of Business not later than 40 minutes after it commences when we never had the practice in the first place? The practice was 30 minutes. I hate being picky but the House was involved in a Supreme Court case because some of us did not read a motion particularly well and the Supreme Court had to make a decision on it. One of the reasons was the motion was badly worded. It is our responsibility if motions are badly worded.