Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, subsection (2), line 15, after "providers" to insert ", trade unions".

I am disappointed I had to table this amendment. I hope the reason will become clear as I make my case for it. The fact that I tabled the amendment means that certain matters are not being taken into consideration when legislation is framed. I do not necessarily point my finger at the advisers in the Minister's Department because this may arise among the draughtspeople or with the Attorney General. I cannot believe the Minister will disagree with me. This is a classic example of our doing things, asserting positions and establishing policy which everybody then forgets. This Government, the previous one and the one before that agreed that when we started to try to build a smart economy we would ask workers to bring their brains to work and we would listen to what they and their representatives had to say. Here, they have been excluded - that is the only word I can use. If no other names had been put down here I would not say they had been excluded but the procedures mentioned include "the opportunity for interested persons". I ask the Minister not to stand up and say that "interested persons" includes the unions. If the list had stopped there I would not have tabled the amendment. I do not want to have an argument about "interested persons". However, it continues with "representatives of the providers". Ibec , the business community and employer representatives are included in that provision. Somebody decided to include those categories. I hope it was not the Minister. I have no problem with their inclusion because I think it is correct they should be there when such a list is made. They have an absolute interest in being present and should be consulted. The list also includes postal service users. What is my view on that? I absolutely agree that the end users must be considered.

Where are we? We talk about the bosses and the users. The workers are in the middle but it does not seem to jump out that we should talk to them too. If the Minister intends to refuse my amendment I ask him to tell me how we have arrived at this position. How can workers' representatives speak to the workers about dealing with Government and the community, being fair and honest and giving their best, and why they should be committed to their service? Why should we have the Croke Park agreement in which we try to create efficiencies and make people do things better, more efficiently and cheaply, and all the rest of it? We talk about all these outcomes that should take place.

I am really disappointed by this part of the legislation and that is why I argue about it. If I had argued this point 25 years ago I would have felt maybe I have to make this case, but to have to make it now is incredible. The Minister and I argued in favour of the Lisbon treaty in various places, with all sorts of people. I wish to read from the Charter of Rights which the Minister and I assured nay-sayers was there for them, to afford them great protection and therefore was worth their support. I refer to Article 12: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to association at all levels, particularly in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests".

That is a European right. I wonder if those who framed the legislation read it. There is a wider question. Are the draughtspeople required to bring such matters into consideration? Is that part of the process? Political parties at union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens. We had this discussion last week when Members questioned whether people should march on the Saturday and I made this very point. Political parties clearly use their political processes, channels and conduits to express their view correctly. Other people, for example, citizens and trade unionists, use different ways. If I must argue the point - I hope I do not have to - I shall refer to Article 27 which has for its heading, " Workers right to information and consultation within the undertaking". I shall read the article into the record. "Workers or their representatives must at appropriate levels be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and conditions provided for". In all fairness should I have to argue this point? I do not believe the Minister and I disagree on these issues.

I read through the legislation which seems to me to be a case of back to the future. This is where we are going - to ignore workers and tell them what to do, to talk to the bosses and the end users. It is about giving them a service and forgetting about the people in the middle. It is terrible that the legislation is framed in this way in the first place and it will be worse if the Minister does not accept this amendment. I have a sinking feeling about how we came to be in this position and that I had to table this amendment at this time.

I am sorry for ranting which is not directed at the Minister but at everything. I ask him to look at the amendment and respond to it by telling workers we value their viewpoint and we want to listen to what they have to say. We want to tell them that when we put a comment box in the corner for their comments on their way out on a Friday evening, or whichever evening, those comments will be taken seriously, and that if they express a view to their trade union that union will be consulted on matters arising, as they do here.