David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is being disingenuous because he has said here in the House, which has no legal effect, that he will introduce it in only one case. If this is the situation, why did he not frame the legislation in such a way that he can introduce it only in one case? He has given himself extremely wide powers. The Bill states:

The Minister may, in respect of—(a) such services provided by the Commission as may be prescribed, and

(b) such services provided by the Labour Court as may be prescribed,charge the recipient of any such service a fee for the purpose of defraying the cost of the provision of that service by the Commission or the Labour Court, as the case may be.

It is the whole shebang; it is the whole shooting match. It is not one little case but the introduction of fees, full stop. It could not be broader or more general. If it is the Minister's intention to introduce it in only one case, he should introduce a provision that meets only that case. This would apply mostly to employers and I have already stated that it is not the slightest penalty against them, given that they are insured against such a contingency. It will have no effect on them. I call on the Minister to withdraw the section. It is not applicable and the Minister's defence of it is extraordinarily weak because although he said he would introduce it in one specific case, he has given himself carte blancheto introduce fees.

If he is serious about it, why not specify the situation in which the Minister may introduce fees? Given that he has not done so, his argument does not stand. He can say what he likes in the Seanad, but it will not be persuasive in a court of law because the legislation will be persuasive, and the legislation is wide open. This is consistently opposed by all the trade unions. If the Minister is seeking good workplace relations, he should not alienate the whole trade union movement.