Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the 12 Senators who participated in this debate. It has been a very interesting discussion. Like others, I welcome the recent resolution of the dispute at the ESB, which is a good example of our existing industrial relations machinery in action. The trade unions, management and staff of the Labour Relations Commission certainly deserve recognition for ending the uncertainty that threatened a disproportionate outcome to the matters in dispute. That must be put on the record.

I thank Senator Quinn for tabling his Bill, which was done with the very best of intentions. We live in an increasingly interconnected world and our communities are dependent on one another in ways that simply were not even thought of decades ago. Through our communications, our dependence on health systems, energy, transport, power and so forth, we are deeply interconnected in a way that was not the case in the past. No one is more aware than me, in my current job, of the importance of confidence in our industrial relations environment. It is very important for investment, success, for good quality employment and for allowing companies to grow. All of that is built on trust and confidence. It is vital that we have good industrial relations, which helps to contribute to and secure economic progress.

As Senator Mullins and others have said, our framework for industrial relations has delivered remarkable industrial peace in this country for many years. We must understand the nature of that success and how it has been built. It is built on a voluntarist system and at its heart is the constitutional freedom of association, the right to join trade unions, the linked freedom to withdraw one's labour, the protection from tort where dispute procedures have been followed and a voluntary system of collective bargaining. It is not built on criminal enforcement or mandatory industrial relations procedures. It is not built on that foundation. Not only is it built on a voluntarist approach, it is also built on the development over many years of exceptional experience in our industrial relations machinery, coupled with exceptional ability to build the sort of confidence and trust across the industrial divide that secures good outcomes. These are embodied in institutions such as the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. That is an asset which we have built over many years and it has served us well in developing a strong export-led economy. I will not get into the difficulties we have had in recent years, but we must rebuild that strong economy.

Clearly, for the voluntarist system that we have developed to continue to work, those who are involved in industrial relations in critical utilities must know that they carry an enormous responsibility. That is absolutely vital. Senator Quinn singles out water and power providers, but one could also include communications, energy and health providers. The same principles apply to all. We must ensure that our very strong voluntarist code continues to develop so that it can continue to handle the challenges that are thrown up by our more interconnected world. Under our industrial relation legislation, a code of practice for dealing with disputes in essential services was first developed in 1992. It is designed to assist employers and trade unions in making agreements which recognise the rights and interests of parties concerned. It outlines procedures to resolve issues in a peaceful manner, avoiding the need for the parties to resort to actions which will lead to disruption. The code recognises that there is a joint responsibility on employers and trade unions to resolve disputes in essential services without resorting to strikes or other forms of industrial action. The code also recognises that there is a joint obligation to have in place agreed contingency plans and other arrangements to deal with any emergency which may arise during an industrial dispute. In particular, the code states that employers and trade unions employed in providing an essential service should co-operate with each other in making arrangements concerning the maintenance of plant and equipment, all matters concerning health safety and security, special operational problems which exist in continuous process industries, the provision of urgent medical services and supplies and the provision of emergency services required on humanitarian grounds. In the case of essential services, the code contains provisions to the effect that general dispute resolution procedures should apply along with additional procedures and safeguards which are necessary for the peaceful resolution of disputes. These should be included in the appropriate agreements between employers and trade unions.

These services include those the cessation or interruption of which could endanger life or cause major damage to the national economy or widespread hardship to the community, particularly health services, energy supplies, including gas and electricity, water and sewage services, fire, ambulance and rescue services and certain elements of public transport.

The code is a guide to the way we need to develop our industrial relations in these critical areas. While some employment groups have engaged, the code has not been incorporated to a sufficient extent into relevant dispute procedures in the case of essential service providers. It is worth looking at how the provisions of the code could be incorporated in a more concrete fashion into the dispute procedures of such entities. This would be worthwhile. As Senator Michael Mullins said, we ought to see "no strike" clauses contained in agreements. There are some cases in which this has happened. This protection needs to be encouraged. I will certainly look afresh at how we can bring about greater application of the code which is well structured. This is the route we should take and as a consequence, I will not support the Bill.

I agree with speakers who have said introducing criminal powers or mandatory obligations to a system we have developed over many years would not be the correct route to take. If this were to happen and if, in the context of a dispute, we saw the courts introduced, the police involved and arrests occurring, I do not believe this would be seen as a route to resolve the issues involved or provide the certainty we seek. We need to build on a model that has served us well, but we must not be complacent and pretend it is perfect. We need to strive constantly to improve it. The existence of the code needs to be promulgated further. This is the route we need to take. In recent years industrial relations have been extremely good and we can build on that experience and deepen the commitment on both sides.

This debate is timely and underlines again the importance of some of these services in the interconnected environment in which we live. The debate has been worthwhile. The direction I would like to see us take is the one where we use and develop the model in place to deal more effectively with these new areas and categories of service. Despite the respect demonstrated on all sides for the Senator and his motivation in bringing it forward, I cannot support the Bill.