Paul Bradford (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for presenting this legislation to the House. I attended the meeting in Leinster House last week at which members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, discussed with Oireachtas Members their ongoing campaign to achieve fairness at work, to put it in simple terms. It was a constructive meeting in the course of which the delegates presented their view on a number of issues, including the provisions of this Bill. On first reading the legislation, one is inclined to welcome it and conclude that its provisions may well be necessary. However, as with all legislation, there are two sides to the equation, particularly in the case of industrial relations, where there is always a particular balance to be struck.

The Minister of State's opening statement included the following interesting comment: "[This] suite of legislative reforms represents a unique opportunity for the Oireachtas to bring about the most significant shift in the industrial relations landscape seen in many years." Will he clarify what he means by a "shift" in industrial relations? Does it involve a rebalancing of the current framework? Does it amount to a move to make the process much more strongly union-friendly than it was heretofore? I pose these questions in view of the statement we hear so often from the Taoiseach and some of his Cabinet colleagues that this Government is committed to ensuring Ireland is the best country, not just in Europe but in the world, in which to do business. We are given to understand a campaign will shortly be launched to offer strong supports to small businesses. If, as we are told, the Government is trying to build an economy that offers the best environment in which to create work and be a business person, is that easily, readily and comfortably compatible with the legislation that is before us today, which the Minister of State has described as initiating the most significant shift in the industrial relations landscape for many years?

The statistics on workers' engagement with official union representation are interesting and an issue I raised with the ICTU delegates last week. If my figures are correct, approximately 35% of workers in the private sector are members of trade unions, with a corresponding figure of 70% in the public sector. These participation rates are very low in comparison with those that applied in the 1960s and 1970s and even into the 1980s. I am not sure whether the lower rates are simply because of changed practices on the part of employers or because workers are making the choice to represent themselves. Against that backdrop, the trade union organisations have work to do in advocating the importance of union membership and seeking to maximise the numbers of new entrants to the workforce they are able to attract.

We all agree on the importance of workers ensuring their concerns are fully met, whether by way of the conventional trade union organisations, through looser associations within the workplace or by way of direct dealings between individual employees and individual employers. I cannot adjudicate as to which form of representation is the best; people must make their own decisions. It is to be hoped, however, that we have moved a long way from the very black and white view of industrial relations that prevailed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It was what we saw in the UK at the time, too - that version of strident industrial relations where unions viewed employers as the big bad wolf and employers saw the unions as most unhelpful. We have matured very much from an industrial relations perspective since that time, and I hope this legislation does nothing to return us to that era. Our core focus should be less about seeking to resolve conflicts and more about trying to ensure there is no conflict in the first place. It is about working to achieve an environment where there are harmonious relationships in the workplace.

The most significant aspect of this legislation is the provision whereby the Circuit Court will be able to intervene and enforce a particular decision. That is a very strong power. I assume the Oireachtas, via the Minister, will have to approve such decisions. Will the Minister of State explain in more detail how significant a change that will be? If colleagues in this and the other House who wanted to see strong new legislation on collective bargaining were not able to get their way, how close is this new Circuit Court route to what they proposed?

It may be helpful when considering this legislation to look to the situation in France, a country which is seen to have a much stronger left-of-centre view of economics and labour relations than many other countries. As I understand it, many of its regulations regarding workers' rights and representation come into effect only where a company employs more than 50 people. In other words, there is a clear line of demarcation between large companies and smaller ones. What is the Minister of State's view on our introducing some degree of separation along those lines?

I look forward to the Minister of State's reply and to engaging with him on Committee Stage. We all must advocate the strongest possible supports for workers and the principle of absolute freedom to negotiate for one's wages and entitlements. We must also be mindful, however, in a country where hundreds of thousands of people are still out of work, that support for job creation and entrepreneurial efforts should remain high on our political agenda and that no element of industrial relations policy should operate as a hindrance in that regard. I will take up these matters in more detail on Committee Stage. I thank the Minister of State for his initial observations and look forward to his further engagement with the House.