David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I cannot, as is customary, commend the author of the Bill for bringing it forward. I spoke to him prior to the debate because this legislation is abhorrent and unhelpful and it is beyond me how any Oireachtas Member would put effort into criminalising workers. The Senator disagrees but I will demonstrate how it does. He also said the legislation does not and will not prevent workers from withdrawing labour but it makes it a criminal offence for a person to engage in industrial action that causes an interruption to the supply of a critical utility. If ESB workers withdraw their labour, that could cause a interruption to services. If we were to accept the Bill, therefore, it would prevent them from doing so. That is the reality and, therefore, it is odious legislation. It would criminalise some groups of workers.

The language used is clear and self-explanatory. The Bill states, "It is an offence for a person to engage in industrial action". It provides for fines, indictments and prison terms, all of which I would characterise as criminalisation. It will also be an offence "to induce an employee of a critical utility to do anything which directly or indirectly causes an interruption or stoppage to the supply of a critical utility." The punishment, fine or deterrent for such behaviour can be 12 months imprisonment and, on indictment, a fine of €250,000 or five years imprisonment and a fine of €50,000. I fail to see how that would not criminalise workers if the Bill was passed.

I do not believe that such right wing, Thatcherite, oppressive and anti-labour policies have any place in this country. These policies were introduced in Britain in the 1970s. The plan then was to crush unions, demoralise workers and break organised labour. This was done by recourse to the law, courts, police and prison. The Bill is a replica of the anti-union legislation passed at that time but the reality is this is not Thatcher's Britain in the 1970s; it is Ireland in 2013, 100 years after the 1913 Lock-out. I am certain the Senator who proposed the Bill is aware of and understands history but the history he seeks to identify with is that of William Martin Murphy and not the workers of Dublin or Larkin or Connolly. This was prompted by IBEC and a number of other employer representative organisations which want such legislation introduced in order that they can be as vengeful, narrow minded and selfish as their colleagues in the 1900s.

The Bill also makes it an offence to induce an employee of a critical utility to do anything which might disrupt supply. What does "induce" mean? Induce and seduce have a similar sound and meaning. Is Senator Quinn of the opinion that unions induce workers to engage in industrial action? Is he saying workers are unthinking and cannot make up their own minds? The intent of the Bill is clear to workers and trades unions. Perhaps it is beyond the Senator's comprehension to imagine workers as thinking human beings who are capable of making up their minds on such matters. They are also rational beings and they are aware of the consequences of industrial action because no worker wants to strike. More than 40% of workers earn less than €30,000 a year. The fastest area of growth in terms of those falling into poverty is among the working poor. There has also been a dramatic increase in part-time, insecure contract employment.

One wonders why the Senator did not dream up legislation that would make it a criminal offence for senior management in strategically important companies to break agreements with their workers and unions. I do not see legislation coming on these issues but that is what the ESB did. Why else would workers have contemplated such extreme action as a strike in the first place? People do not go on strike for the fun of it; they go on strike because they are being denied basic rights and the industrial relations machinery has not worked in their favour. It is a fundamental right to strike and that right is recognised in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states, "Everyone has the right to form and join trade unions and the right to strike". The explicit right to strike is also recognised in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests and to engage in industrial action". It is about solidarity and it is also about the common good. We have made several requests on the Order of Business for the Minister to come to the House to discuss what form of collective bargaining rights the Government will introduce. I remind him in the context of this odious legislation that workers still do not have the right to be represented by their trade union and or to engage in collective bargaining in this, the centenary of the 1913 Lock-out.

I very much look forward to the legislation the Minister brings forward but I robustly stand against this legislation.