Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jul 2011

Vol. 739 No. 2

Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share my time with Deputies Browne and Dooley. I would prefer not to have to introduce this Bill. I have plenty of other things to be doing rather than sitting down preparing legislation, but the Minister, Deputy Bruton, gave a solemn commitment, on the morning of the High Court decision on 7 July last, to senior representatives in the trade union movement that he would introduce emergency legislation, which commitment was subsequently publicised in the media. It was not fulfilled and here we are.

This is not an anti-employer measure. I have the greatest respect for employers throughout this country, especially small employers and those trying to survive running small businesses. Without their ingenuity, drive, capacity and willingness to take risks, this economy could not function. However, as in any large group, there is a certain small minority who are not prepared to play the game on the same level playing pitch as everyone else and the difficulty is that there is a serious danger that they, by their actions, may drag their counterparts into a race to the bottom.

I asked the Minister last week at the committee why the Government did not simply appeal the decision of the High Court and use that request to ask for a stay of execution. He gave me two explanations. First, the advice from the Attorney General was that an appeal would be very unlikely to succeed, and second, also on the advice of the Attorney General, the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, would be wary of bringing anyone to court for any alleged transgressions during that hiatus.

Both of those explanations are less than compelling, to put it at its mildest. On the first point, the Government could simply have lodged a notice of appeal as a tactic. It would not be the first time that was done and it would not be the last. I was not suggesting the Government take it to appeal as such and go all the way to a Supreme Court hearing because I happen to agree with the Attorney General. I think the chances of success would be minuscule. However, it would be well worth putting in the notice and not advancing it, which would mean the Government would have plenty of time to give thought and preparation to more comprehensive legislation. Second, regardless of what NERA decided to do or not to do in the interim period, the fact the legislation which would allow joint labour committees, JLCs, to be recreated was passed would be a deterrent to anyone who might be tempted to interfere with workers' present contracts because they would be put on notice that the system was coming back.

The decision of the High Court was based on Article 15.2.1°, which, in summary, provides that the power of making law is reserved exclusively to the Oireachtas. This Article has fallen for consideration in many cases. The courts have recognised the fact that sometimes rules are to be so detailed that the Oireachtas cannot possibly sit down and legislate for every conceivable situation. The JLCs are a perfect example. Another example that immediately springs to mind is the Private Residential Tenancies Board, which has been given certain powers, also by primary legislation. However, the courts have also decided that when power making is devolved from the Oireachtas to a subsidiary body, such as a joint labour committee of the Labour Court, the body cannot exercise that power unless there is a set of principles and policies set out in the primary legislation under which it must operate. Those principles and policies were not set out in the Industrial Relations Act 1946 which provided for the system of JLCs, which is why, in the opinion of the High Court, the system was unconstitutional.

Counsel for the State argued, cogently in my view, that it was not necessary to set out the principles and policies quite specifically, that from a general reading of the legislation one could deduce these principles. My view of the judgment, for what it is worth, is that the High Court took the view that in certain cases one can do that. It depends on the extent and the consequences of the exercise of those powers given to the subsidiary body.

In this case, the court pointed out that one of the consequences for non-compliance with an employment regulation order was a criminal conviction, which is a fairly serious matter. Another provision in the 1946 legislation was that there was no appeal from the decision of a JLC and it had to remain there in stone for six months even if it was obviously flawed, which is fairly serious. They also pointed out that there was nothing in the 1946 legislation to provide for any supervision by the Oireachtas or by the Minister. The court took the view, given all those serious consequences, that the principles would have to be set out specifically in order that anyone could refer to them.

What I am doing is setting out those principles. The previous Government anticipated the problem. Obviously, someone advised it there was a problem in this regard. It brought forward such legislation, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009. The relevant section was contained in that Bill, which, unfortunately, lapsed with the calling of a general election. I put that section into this new legislation. Instead of it leading automatically to a criminal conviction, I also provide for a civil remedy as an alternative, as suggested by the Duffy-Walsh report. I also provide that these provisions can be changed, even within six months, if the circumstances warrant. We also provide that the Minister would be the final person to sign off on an employment regulation order, ERO, and before doing so, he or she would have to place it before both Houses of the Oireachtas for the requisite period, thereby introducing ministerial and Oireachtas supervision.

The Taoiseach stated this afternoon that this legislation was not robust enough and that it does not achieve what he thinks it should achieve, but he is not absolutely clear on what it should achieve. In view of the Government's failure to appeal the matter and ask for a stay, no one can bring legislation into this House that will magically make constitutional what has been declared unconstitutional. One cannot do that. I suspect that is what the Attorney General told the Government.

However, the Bill puts in place new legislation which is constitutional which allows the process of setting up JLCs and getting EROs to start immediately. In doing that, it gives reassurance to up to 250,000 workers and their families who are anxious, worried, upset and facing a summer of uncertainty. It also puts on notice the small minority of employers who might seek to change contracts unilaterally that they are wasting their time and that the system is coming back. In case the Minister refers to it in his reply, by putting in place legislation to enable the system to be recreated I do not suggest for one moment that the old, unreformed present system should be reconstituted. Had I more time I could have written into the legislation the changes from the Duffy-Walsh report. Unfortunately, the time was not available to me. However, if the Minister accepts this legislation and allows the process to start under it, he could stipulate that he would not sign off — as he must do under the legislation — on any employment regulation order, ERO, unless it contained changes or reflected the changes set out by the Duffy-Walsh report. In other words, we would have employment regulation orders and the joint labour committee system but we would sweep away all the old anomalies and inequities of which the Duffy-Walsh committee recommended reform. We do this not for any personal gratification or glorification. As I have stated, I would prefer not to have to do this at all. We do this because there are several hundred thousand families who are very concerned by the vacuum.

Let us focus for one moment on the sort of people we are talking about. Those working in the joint labour committee, JLC, sector are, generally speaking, part-time workers, women who work in hotels or shops because their husbands have lost their jobs, migrant workers, young people, people who work in fast food restaurants and people who are extremely vulnerable and badly paid. If anyone doubts my final assertion, let us consider the figures produced by the Central Statistics Offers recently in respect of pay levels in Ireland. Currently, the average rate of pay in the country, including the public and private sectors, is €675 per week gross. In the public sector, it is €871 per week gross and in the private sector it is €602 per week. This is an imbalance in itself. However, let us consider the sectors typically covered by the JLCs, including the hotel and accommodation areas and so on. The average wage in these sectors is €288 per week. These are the type of people with whom we are dealing and whom we are discussing.

Let us consider the situation they are in. As a result of the High Court decision, anyone coming to a JLC area after 7 July has no protection. The only protection he or she has is under the National Minimum Wage Act. Earlier, the Minister referred to other legislation. However, there is a great deal in JLCs which are not covered by primary legislation at all. Basically, such a person's entitlement is the minimum wage. In the case of people already in the system, if they change from one job to another within a given sector and start afresh, they have no protection. For an employer so minded, there is an obvious opportunity to remove protections which people allegedly have. However, the greatest canard of all is the idea that people in the system are protected by their current contracts. Some of these contracts are verbal and not written down at all. The argument on the Government side is that the terms of the employment regulation orders are imported into the contracts of people who are working in the sector and, therefore, any interference with these would be a breach of contract and would make the employer liable for breach of contract. I am unsure about this and I call on the Minister to clarify in his reply whether this applies to unwritten contracts. Even if it does, the difficulty is that up to 7 July, if a person's contract was interfered with and if a person was not getting what he or she was entitled to under his or her contract, he or she could simply make a complaint to the National Employment Rights Authority and the State would enforce the contract for such a person. Now, the National Employment Rights Authority is out of the equation and each of those vulnerable, low-paid workers has the responsibility of vindicating his or her own rights.

First, one must bring a case to the Rights Commissioner, whose decision is not binding, and from there on appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. At issue are migrant workers, part-time workers and people earning approximately €200 per week. The first thing such a person would be concerned about is that they would be faced by a heavy duty lawyer, whether a solicitor or barrister, working on behalf of the employer when they go before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Second, there is a dreadful labour market which is very difficult. Such a person would have no wish to get on the wrong side of their employer because, ultimately, if they are forced out, they would have no wish to have the name of being someone who brought an employer through the system because that would be a black mark, especially in small towns. The bargaining position between such workers and employers is grossly unequal. It is utterly unfair for any Government to expect these people to vindicate their own rights when previously it was done by the State. In the sectors covered by JLCs there is now no effective mechanism to enable employers and employees to engage in collective bargaining at local level on equal terms. The Duffy-Walsh report states the position well. Page 49 of the report states:

Trade unions and bodies representing the interest of workers contend that in the absence of any statutory framework in which collective bargaining ... can take place, JLCs provide the only mechanism by which the interests of workers can be protected and advanced in the sectors concerned. They say that the rates and conditions prescribed by EROs reflect what is regarded as reasonable in employments at the lower end of the labour market in which collective bargaining takes place. They say that the openness of our labour market makes this form of regulation particularly necessary and relevant. The unions also pointed out that many downward adjustments in rates and conditions of employment have been agreed in many JLCs, including deferral of increases in pay, adjustments in Sunday premia and lower starting rates.

There is also a good deal of evidence to support the unions' fears that those currently in employment could be pressurised into accepting lower pay and conditions from some employers or could be displaced by new employees on reduced terms. The discussion relates to extremely vulnerable people. As it stands, a return to individual bargaining could have some considerably unwelcome commercial implications. For example, with regard to internal competition in the sectors concerned, it is impossible to envisage how individual local bargaining could take place without putting those employers prepared to engage in good faith at a commercial disadvantage relative to those who are not. In other words, if there is a system in place that protects the good employers who have no wish to break the law and who wish to do right by their employees, it protects them because other people who are not similarly minded cannot undercut them.

One advantage of accepting this Bill is that the process of recreating JLCs and the EROs which come from them can start immediately. This would remove the fear and anxiety of employees in these sectors and it would put employers on notice that a robust system was in the process of being recreated. It would deter anyone who was so minded from acting to the disadvantage of their workers in the meantime. The Government can direct that any new ERO must accommodate the changes outlined in the Duffy-Walsh report. The Bill gives the Government the ideal sanction to ensure this can take place and the Minister need not sign off on any ERO which does not incorporate such changes.

The Government can amend the Bill as it wishes. It can introduce more complex and detailed legislation later when it is ready and such legislation has been properly prepared and thought through. However, it is vital from the point of view of these vulnerable, low-paid employees not to allow a period of uncertainty. If the Minister refuses to accept this Bill, having already refused to ask for a stay of execution in respect of the High Court decision, the prospects of some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in this country are ominous. They would be right to feel a sense of foreboding. I know of many JLC workers in my constituency and in the past many of them have voted for me. I could demonstrate by reference to the different areas that many of them voted for the Labour Party at the last election. They expected the Labour Party to stand by them and to protect their interests. I call on the Labour Party not to abandon those people to a summer of fear, anxiety and uncertainty in addition to all the other problems they must contend with in this era of unprecedented austerity.

There is an old adage which perhaps applies to my own party in the case of what has happened in the past. It holds that if one stands for everything, then one stands for nothing. I advocate a simpler adage: if one does not stand for something, then one stands for nothing. If the Labour Party does not stand for the poorest, the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in this country, then I cannot know what it stands for.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the legislation and to compliment Deputy Willie O'Dea on introducing the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011. As a result of the High Court ruling on JLCs, thousands of low-paid workers face cuts in their pay and conditions. Having reneged on its promise to tackle this situation immediately, the Government now maintains it will not introduce legislation until the new Dáil term, probably sometime between September and Christmas. Fianna Fáil has therefore taken a decision to introduce this emergency legislation to allow protection of these workers. It is not good enough, as Deputy O'Dea said, that vulnerable workers will be left in this situation while the Government takes its holidays and will not return until some time in late September.

While the action related to catering workers, its outcome has implications for 200,000 or perhaps more workers whose minimum pay and conditions are set under the JLC system. All employment regulation orders, EROs, cease to have statutory effect from the date of the ruling and cannot be enforced. In theory, low paid workers already on contracts fixed under the JLC system cannot have their pay changed.

Following the ruling, IBEC sent a bulletin to member companies stating employees would continue to have the same rates of pay and conditions of employment "unless and until they agree otherwise". I wonder what IBEC meant by that statement and it certainly did not spell it out. I am sure many employers, given the High Court ruling, have decided they are not prepared to wait until staff freely agree to change their contracts. Some companies could actually use the High Court ruling as a cover effectively to demand that their staff renegotiate employment agreements and accept inferior terms and conditions. Were an employer to renege on a contract, how many employees would really have the resources to bring this to court? We are talking about the most vulnerable in our society, including those on the minimum wage and the low paid. With legal costs, they would not be in a position to take on some of the major employers in the courts.

It is possible that we will see a wave of employers moving together on this issue. It is also expected, as a result of this ruling, that people who take up jobs or have new contracts drawn up will face lower rates of pay and inferior working conditions. The Minister might explain the future position of people who are on contracts and then leave one employment for another. Once a person breaks a contract under the present system, given the way IBEC is talking, the person will be on the new scale of pay or whatever the employer will decide to pay. The IBEC bulletin stated:

The biggest impact will be that employers will be able to hire new employees on more competitive conditions. Until today, employers were prohibited from hiring and retaining staff at rates of pay which were less than employment regulation order rates.

It is important that the Minister carefully spells out what he would see as "more competitive conditions" given that people on minimum wage are already providing their services at a very competitive rate.

The judgment also means that the State is to discontinue 70 prosecutions against employers for breaches of JLC rules on workers' pay. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, confirmed that the prosecutions, which include high profile cases, would now be abandoned. The Minister might comment on the statement by NERA. Legal and employer sources also maintain that a separate system of setting pay and conditions in more than 60 companies and industries, known as registered employment agreements, could be legally shaky based on the ruling, although they are not specifically covered by it.

As Deputy O'Dea stated, we are talking about people who are already on very low incomes. There are 19 JLCs which cover areas as varied as agricultural work; catering, excluding Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire; catering in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire; contract cleaning in Dublin; hairdressing in Cork city; handkerchief and household piece goods; hotels in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire; hotels in other areas, excluding Cork; law clerks; provender milling; retail, grocery and allied trades; the security industry; tailoring; and other areas of industry. When we look at that list of JLCs, we see it involves people working in the lowest paid sectors. Without the protection of the JLCs, they will find it very difficult to earn adequate wages in the future.

A study published in the Industrial Relations Journal in January 2011 found that two thirds of respondents surveyed considered that JLCs were still necessary, in addition to the national minimum wage, while a third thought they were not necessary. The article, “Minimum labour standards in a social partnership system: the persistence of the Irish variant of Wages Councils”, by Ms Michelle O’Sullivan and Mr. Joseph Wallace, found that the overwhelming majority of trade union and independent members believed JLCs were necessary. While employer members were most likely to hold the view that JLCs were no longer necessary, there was not a consensus among them on this issue. A substantial minority of one third of employer respondents believed JLCs were necessary. The reasons with the strongest employer support were that JLCs are necessary because they tailor minimum pay and conditions to the specific industry or employment covered — this was held by 33% of employers — and that JLCs are necessary because they try to prevent employer undercutting, which is also an important area.

The Minister spoke clearly when the ruling was published last week, stating he would act immediately, but this has not happened. He has taken advice from the Office of the Attorney General and asked her to explore all the legal options, and he might make that advice available to this House. While it is the Minister, on the advice of the Attorney General, who will make the decision that nothing will happen until later in the year, many people in the industries to which I referred will suffer very seriously in regard to their wage structure in the coming months. It is very important that the Minister would hold out some hope today and honour some of the commitments he gave immediately following the court ruling, including that he would deal with it as a matter of urgency. To wait until later in the year is not to do that. The Minister and the Cabinet are reneging on many of the promises they made in this area following the court decision.

It is also important the Labour Party would step up to the plate given its members always maintained they supported the less well-off in our community and society. If they do not support this Bill, they are reneging on the meaning of looking after the less well-off in society. I hope they will make a contribution to Deputy O'Dea's Bill in the House today and tomorrow and explain where they are coming from on this issue.

IBEC was quick out of the traps following the High Court ruling on JLCs on 7 July to advise its members that new employees might be offered rates and conditions which are not based on any employment regulation order. In my opinion, this was nothing short of appalling. It was victory for the idea of cheap labour, a return to the dark old days and an attempt to keep the less well-off just that — less well off. I am sure the head honchos in IBEC will not be on the minimum wage and will not be concerned about JLCs for their own protection. I believe IBEC has had and still has too much power, both with the last Government and with this Government. It was IBEC which stated that a reduction in the minimum wage would create hundreds of jobs, but it certainly did not do that. IBEC is now suggesting that the reduction in VAT under this Government will create hundreds of jobs. While I acknowledge the Minister dealt with this issue earlier during Question Time, how many hotels and restaurants nationwide have passed on the VAT reduction? In my home county of Wexford, it seems as though very few have done so. IBEC should also be considering this matter instead of spending all its time trying to have a race to the bottom in respect of the less well-off in society.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute in support of the Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, on this important matter. I was rather confused earlier today when this issue was raised during Leaders' Questions. In his response later, perhaps the Minister will attempt to enlighten Members as to what precisely is the position of the Government and Fine Gael in this regard. The Taoiseach stated he would not oppose the Bill and while he also stated it was insufficiently robust, he gave no specifics as to what he meant. He followed up by noting he had been elected with a mandate to sort out the country's problems. A number of conflicting desires are evident and when the Minister responds, perhaps he will provide Members with greater clarity in this regard.

At the heart of the intent behind this legislation is a desire to allay the fears of more than 200,000 workers, their families and the communities in which they play a vital part. This point is of key importance and if the Government is to show leadership, having espoused the virtue of demonstrating leadership upon taking office, then actions must speak louder than words. I also question the absence of the many Labour Party Members both during Leaders' Questions today when the issue was raised and at present, when this debate on such a fundamental issue is under way. Much was heard during the general election about the working classes and about representing them and at that time, a topical spin was that Fianna Fáil did not represent the views of the working classes. This is not the case and I would not be in this Chamber unless I represented the views of the working classes. This also is true of my colleague in Limerick, Deputy O'Dea, and neither he nor I would be Members of this House without the support of the working classes. Consequently, we are following through on our commitment to support the working classes, who we represent.

It is important to place on record that this issue does not simply concern people who are engaged in contract cleaning. People within my constituency are engaged as agricultural workers, in catering and hairdressing, as hotel workers and law clerks and in the retail and security industries. It is not simply something that happens in Dublin, which appears to have a concentration of the anomalies that obtained under the old joint labour committee, JLC, system. I agree that reform of the JLCs is necessary and I remind Members that Fianna Fáil introduced the JLC system in following through and protecting its origins as a political party and in support of the working classes. However, I agree one must move with the times. One must change and reflect the recommendations within the Duffy-Walsh report because sectoral and geographical anomalies exist and one must try to bring about uniformity and conformity across the country to achieve a level playing pitch.

Moreover, it is worth bearing in mind this proposed legislation also protects employers. While we represent workers and the working classes, we also represent employers and there often is a tendency to get carried away in respect of protecting employees while forgetting the vast majority of employers give employment, pay these people's wages, look after their welfare and are concerned about them. Such employers are protected by bringing forth this legislation because they then are protected from the rogue employers who may target these vulnerable people. Consequently, it is important that Members get clarity from the Government side.

It has been noted the Government had the option to appeal the judgment which struck down the JLCs. Had it taken that option, it would have stalled the process to introduce the Government's own proposals. However, the Government should take on board the good intent in the Bill. It should think outside the box and not simply knock it because it comes from the Opposition benches. I note the Minister recently announced his intention to streamline the employment rights agencies. This proposal is well-intentioned and has merit and it will be a positive development when the Minister fleshes out a little further his proposals in this regard. I do not believe he will be found wanting when it comes to support from this side of the House. However, my primary concern is for the protection of the vulnerable workers and the working classes I represent. Members must remove uncertainty for these people over the summer months because they are feeling the effects of the downturn in the economy most keenly. They are the workers at the lowest end of the scale and every possible measure must be taken to remove this uncertainty and to allow them have a decent summer along with everyone else, if possible.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and like my colleague, I thank Deputy O'Dea for rapidly introducing what I consider to be comprehensive legislation. The Minister has indicated with the benefit of legal advice from the Attorney General that it is not sufficiently robust — I believe that was the language used — or comprehensive. While I acknowledge this is the position being taken by the Minister, nothing prevents him from allowing the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage and then introducing substantial amendments to meet the needs of the Attorney General or any other legal advice taken in this regard.

I am approaching this issue from the perspective of being Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on tourism and I look to the many people who are employed in that sector. In many cases, such people are in receipt of relatively low wages anyway. If one goes through the various different wage structures that exist within the JLC structure, these people are not highly paid. Moreover, the people who in general are protected by JLCs effectively are in careers they have decided to follow. During the course of the election, much was made by the Labour Party, as well as by Fine Gael Members, of their intention to protect the lowest-paid workers in society. As such, they made a commitment to the people to reverse the decision taken by the previous Government on the minimum wage. As the Minister is aware, the minimum wage covers a very small group of employees who usually are people in a transient employment structure. They may be young people who are entering the workforce for the first time or those who find themselves between jobs. The JLCs protect those who I believe have taken a particular career path or career choice. From the tourism perspective, it is neither adequate nor right that the Minister would undermine that wage structure or allow certain unscrupulous employers to undermine it. People in this country, as well the tourists, greatly value the unique welcome that the Irish present and the unique work done by Irish people in the tourism sector. If the Government is prepared to allow the framework under which such people's pay is protected to drop or diminish or to lead in any way to a disgruntlement of those workers, it will damage the very face of Irish tourism and the Minister should give serious consideration to this point.

The Minister has indicated with regard to the lacuna that exists at present by virtue of the court case effectively ending the JLCs that somehow individuals who already are in a contract of employment have a degree of security of tenure. Deputy O'Dea set out clearly the nonsense of that assertion. I refer to the example of an employer who is not unscrupulous but who must remain competitive. Were such an employer to tell his or her workforce that because the nearby hotelier, restaurateur or contract cleaner who has just entered the market has taken on a new group of people, he or she has no choice but to ask the workers to change their contract, the workers would be in no position to challenge that. They would be damned glad to have any level of income, despite the impact it would have on their lifestyles and on their ability to pay their mortgages or to pay their way. Moreover, I suspect that in the case of many, the family income supplement would be their next port of call.

In conclusion, the Minister is undermining the quality of the employees by targeting them in an unfair manner, putting them at a disadvantage in respect of their lifestyles and making them more disgruntled with regard to their work. I believe this will have an impact on tourism while at the same time imposing a greater burden on the State to support their income through family income supplement. Other speakers indicated the unwillingness of some within the catering sector to honour the Minister's desire to create more turnover within the economy through a reduction of 4% in the VAT rate. He robbed the private pension plans of pensioners to support this and it has not been taken up terribly well. Somehow, he is now leaving the lives of these workers to the scruples of these individuals who have not even honoured what the Minister tried to do. I am concerned in this regard. I would have thought many more members of the Labour Party would have been in the Chamber for this debate and to support those whom they seem to indicate they will protect.

I propose to share time with Deputies Seán Sherlock, Olivia Mitchell, Alex White and Brendan Griffin.

Is that agreed? Agreed. The Minister has ten minutes and the other speakers have five minutes each.

I thank the proposer of this Bill, Deputy Willie O'Dea. As the Deputy knows, the Government will not be opposing the taking of Second Stage. I accept the intention behind Deputy O'Dea's Bill is in good faith and that the Bill attempts to protect vulnerable workers. However, as the Taoiseach said earlier, our legal advice is absolutely crystal clear in that the Bill as drafted is not robust enough to deal with the problem he seeks to solve. While the intentions are good, unfortunately, the Bill is not adequate.

It has been known for some time that this system has been vulnerable to legal challenge. The first challenge was commenced in 2008. This Bill is largely modelled on a Bill, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which was introduced in April 2009 by the Government, of which Deputy O'Dea was a member, following that challenge. The aim of that Bill was to protect the joint labour committee, JLC, system and to provide a robust shield. However, the Bill did not proceed beyond Second Stage which was completed in February 2010, despite the presence of the legal challenges. It is surprising it was not included in its legislative programme and the Government instead prioritised a Bill to cut the national minimum wage and this was implemented. I accept the good faith of Deputy O'Dea who is striking his chest and saying: "Mea culpa, we changed our minds; I was wrong then and I am a different person now”. It is difficult not to be a little cynical. The Bill was in existence and could have been implemented by the previous Government but instead it decided to push ahead with a cut in the national minimum wage.

The Government could push ahead with it now.

This Government has been clear from the outset. We sought to restore the national minimum wage and this we have done. We wanted to protect the JLC system but to reform it and to make it fit for purpose. An independent report has found that the system requires radical reform. The Government's position is clear: a reformed JLC system is required which will protect people. We have restored the national minimum wage.

The judgment is quite devastating in its impact, finding that the existing legislation is unconstitutional on several fronts. These findings are quite far-reaching. Not only does it criticise delegated functions, it found that this was a delegated body seeking to make orders that had criminal effect. It also found that the principles that allowed for the establishment of JLCs were not sufficient to allow an order be made that would have criminal force. It found that some elements of the orders were arbitrary in their operation and vulnerable on the grounds of property rights. It found that the exigencies of the common good were not sufficient grounds on which to defend the orders against the legal attack under way. This was a very strong judgment.

As several Deputies on the Opposition benches rightly pointed out, I promised I would explore all ways to try to protect workers from the impact of this judgment. I have not reneged on any promise. My promise was to explore all ways to protect people. I was as disappointed as anyone else that our efforts to find those protections by means of short-term measures were not possible. I have discussed this with Deputy O'Dea in committee. I had two options, one of which was to appeal the judgment and find a stay. This was very clearly shot down on legal grounds in that the grounds for making such an appeal were not robust, in that such a stay would be unlikely to be granted and, even if granted, would not be legally sound. The second option was to introduce emergency legislation. This would not have been possible, even if the Oireachtas voted through those orders one by one. On legal advice, this would not be robust to legal challenge. We looked hard at those options and it was not the case that the Government was heartless, as Deputy O'Dea sought to portray it. We were anxious to protect the system and to ensure the protection remained for those who needed it. It was the legal advice that neither of those options were viable.

This Bill presented by Deputy Willie O'Dea is, unfortunately, not adequate. The policies and principles outlined are insufficient to address aspects of the judgment. This is the legal advice. I am conscious I am in the presence of lawyers with far more knowledge in this regard. They are not sufficient to meet the flaws exposed in the court judgment. There are far-reaching issues to be considered than have been addressed in this legislation. We have yet to see the final declarations but those will be available before the end of the month.

I must advise the House that having taken legal advice, the only robust way to proceed is to reconstruct on a sound basis a system for making such orders which will be robust against legal challenge. It must protect vulnerable people who do not have the opportunity to be well organised. The Government will have to embrace the radical reforms advised by independent scrutiny of this system. This is the only way to proceed.

It would be irresponsible of me to pretend that this Bill is adequate and to create the illusion that it would be a shield against the storm or provide protection that was taken away last Thursday. Unfortunately, it would not provide such protection, although the intention of the Bill is undoubtedly good. This is the reason I am happy not to oppose the reading of the Bill. The principle is right. We want to copperfasten this system but the legislation is not adequate. The Government will have to decide on whether this Bill can proceed to Committee Stage or whether it is more likely that the changes we will introduce will be so significantly different from Deputy O'Dea's Bill that it would be only fair to the House to have a proper Second Stage debate on that Bill at that stage. Our intention is to develop legislation of architecture that will be sound and robust to deal with the legal challenges we have seen. I believe that to be the correct and valid way to proceed.

The High Court indicated that it intends to grant an order declaring sections 42, 43, and 45 of the Industrial Relations Act 1946 and section 45 of the 1990 Act to be unconstitutional. In this new Bill, the response by Deputy O'Dea has been to import the exact provisions of four original sections that had featured in the now lapsed Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009. The 2009 Bill had been introduced by the last Government in the summer of 2009 but it did not proceed beyond its Second Stage reading in this House, which was completed on 11 February 2010. Regrettably that Bill failed to make any progress on the last Government's legislative programme until it eventually lapsed with the end of the last Dáil.

The only really novel provision in this Bill is at section 7, which repeals section 45 of the 1946 Act which makes it an offence for an employer to pay to a worker remuneration less than the statutory minimum remuneration, or to fail to comply with statutory conditions of employment. This section, which the High Court ruled was unconstitutional, was the subject of recommendation 19 in the independent review report, the Duffy Walsh report. That report recommended that the mechanism for enforcing EROs be brought into line with that for regulated employment agreements and that, as an alternative to a criminal prosecution, a complaint could be brought before the Labour Court. The report recommended that NERA be authorised to bring such a complaint in respect of either an REA or an ERO.

I welcome the proposal to decriminalise the initial steps in the enforcement process of EROs. It makes sense, as Kevin Duffy and Dr. Walsh had recommended, to allow room for NERA to bring a complaint to the Labour Court on behalf of an individual or group of workers rather than retain the current arrangements where enforcement is only by way of a prosecution before the District Court. Unfortunately the incorporation of the proposed amendment on the enforcement of EROs at section 7 is the only provision in the Bill that responds directly to the specific recommendations in the independent review report.

The new Bill does not contain any provisions to respond to other specific changes that were called for in the recommendations of the Duffy Walsh report. Recommendation 16 of that report called for all of the changes that were proposed in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 to be enacted along with amendments to cover the additional recommendations made in the report regarding the legislative framework within which both the ERO and REA systems operate. It makes no sense to tackle this task in a piecemeal way or to leave REAs to the mercy of some continuing legal challenges. Unfortunately this Bill does not address the significant range of changes called for by Kevin Duffy and Dr. Frank Walsh to safeguard the statutory wage-setting machinery from the threat of constant litigation and judicial review.

Recommendation 1 of the independent review report also called for an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act of 1990 to provide a means whereby the scope of the particular establishment orders of JLCs could be reviewed by the Labour Court. The report also recommended that the Labour Court be empowered to undertake periodic reviews of EROs in the interests of greater clarity as regards their purpose and the classification of the workers and the types of enterprises covered. Action with regard to these recommendations will be crucial to providing protection for EROs against further legal challenges.

Recommendation 9 of the independent review report also called for amendments to be made to the Industrial Relations Act of 1990 regarding the constitution and proceedings of JLCs. This is another critical area in which action is now required in light of the High Court ruling.

Unfortunately at a time when it is vital to provide more certainty for vulnerable workers in low-paid sectors the proposed Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011 presented by Deputy O'Dea offers only limited protection. I am convinced that the urgent preparation of substantive legislation represents the only reliable means of guaranteeing protection for vulnerable workers in low-paid sectors.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue and to lend my support to the Government in its determination to introduce meaningful and fundamental reform to what is outdated labour law and wage-setting mechanisms. I completely accept the motivation of the Deputy in introducing the Bill to protect workers who as a result of the High Court decision are vulnerable to wage cutting by unscrupulous employers. However, workers are far more vulnerable to years of unreformed labour law and vulnerable to unemployment, about which we are much more concerned.

We have all been lobbied by workers in the construction, retail and hospitality sectors who have highlighted the damage of retaining special employment arrangements for these sectors. This is particularly true in the hospitality and retail sectors, both of which have seen major reductions in employment in recent years. They are also areas of great potential, in particular the tourism industry, which can bring jobs to every town and village where there may be little prospect of getting other employment. It is also a vital service export with high employment, which was allowed to become grossly uncompetitive in recent years. I do not suggest that the problems in this sector are entirely due to labour costs, but it is certainly one of the problems from which the industry suffered and it is not a cause that cannot be addressed.

I would like to see the total abolition of JLCs, EROs and REAs. Perhaps we should have used the opportunity of the High Court decision to start with a clean slate, but if that is not on the table, at a minimum we need fundamental reform of them to update the laws to meet current economic conditions. Opposition Members know that notwithstanding the court judgment, major reform was not only highly desirable — as they have admitted on many occasions in the Chamber — but it is also a condition of the bailout. Nobody can be in any doubt about the need for change. Every day we hear of a hotel or restaurant going to the wall. Profits, salaries, all input costs, rents and wages are all reducing. Trying to shelter any one sector from inevitable economy-wide trends will only impact on the workers we are trying to protect, who will lose their jobs.

We know that the construction sector pay rates have no relevance in today's climate and trying to enforce them any longer would be like trying to hold back the tide. Worse than denying reality, it is encouraging the black market for what little work there is in the sector.

In the retail sector, with the collapse of Superquinn and the need to bring in the receiver, we saw clearly the pressures on businesses and the need to stay competitive. I am delighted that the jobs of those workers seem to be secured. However, the outcome for consumers is not optimal given that an existing player has taken over. I have nothing against the Musgrave Group, which is a good business with a successful operation, but further concentration at both the retail and wholesale sector levels does not serve the best interests of consumers or producers. It would be preferable to have a new entrant in the retail trade and the Minister should consider the barriers inhibiting new retailers from entering, which are operating in virtually every other European economy.

The Opposition Bill deals with only one aspect of the fundamental reform that is now well overdue as has been acknowledged. There is little point in piecemeal reform at this stage when we have had expert reports and widespread consultation as well as the High Court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the old regime. The Deputy's Bill is not of the scope the troika had in mind when it demanded reform of our labour laws to reflect market realities. We need to get on with reform as quickly as possible as the Minister has undertaken to do.

It is not unreasonable for Deputy O'Dea to introduce this Bill so we can have a debate on the issue. Apart from one or two issues that appear in the Bill, it is largely the same as the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which I supported and spoke in favour of in the Seanad. The Deputy is correct in saying it was an attempt to anticipate the likely frailty and ultimate fate of a challenge that was then being brought to the orders and to the JLC system.

While I understand where Deputy O'Dea is coming from as regards the notion of the Government appealing the decision of Mr. Justice Feeney to the Supreme Court as a tactic, he will appreciate that such an approach is fraught with danger, particularly for a Government in circumstances in which — according to the Deputy if I heard him correctly — the prospect of success is minuscule. It would be wrong for the House to have the impression that bringing forth such an appeal would mean the Government would automatically obtain a stay on the orders. Obtaining a stay in the context of the High Court decision would be difficult.

It is not unreasonable for the Deputy to introduce the Bill, but the Government is right and the Minister and the Taoiseach are correct in the approach they have taken in saying the Bill is not sufficiently robust. If the legislation is to achieve what people want, a number of matters must be addressed and necessary and vital improvements must be made to make it fit for purpose.

We cannot forget that there were two essential pillars to the Feeney judgment. One was the absence of principles and policies to guide the court on the JLCs, while the other was the issue of whether property rights under the Constitution were offended by the system. As a minimum, a prudent Government and the House would want to proof legislation in the context of the latter issue. Given the fact that previous proposals on protective trade union legislation came a cropper on this issue, it presents a considerable problem to those of us who want real reform and full collective bargaining rights for trade unions. It also presents a problem in this instance, in that it would be most imprudent to rush legislation when the High Court has identified that the property rights issue must be addressed. Perhaps it cannot be dealt with in legislation. Given the nature of these rights, dealing with them solely in legislation would be difficult, but they must be addressed.

The other issue is that referred to by the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, and my colleague Deputy Mitchell, namely, the question of principles and policies raised in the judgment. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, has signalled an intention to introduce reforms, the Government has committed to reforming the JLC system and there have been consultation and debate on how that should be achieved and what the changes would be precisely. I imagine that agreement could be reached on this agenda, but the principles and policies resulting from the agreement should be incorporated in any new legislation. Those contained in the Bill date from 2009, relate to the interests of the workers, employers and so on, are somewhat bland and cover a bit of ground but not all of it. We should use the legislation to provide for these new principles and policies also.

I wish to make two crucial comments on the introduction of the Bill. While I am not criticising Deputy O'Dea, I ask him and the House to consider a point. It is not true to claim that were all Stages to be passed tonight, it would immediately bring about a change. As the Deputy must know, if a JLC needs to be set up again, the procedure under the 1946 Act requires an absolute minimum period of 30 days. In fact, one would need to do 24 hours of bureaucratic work first, after which there would be a 30-day period in which an inquiry into whether a JLC should be set up would be held. Having set up the JLC and on making an employment regulation order, ERO, there would be a further 30-day minimum period. A 60-day period would result the moment the Bill was passed. Meanwhile, we would have our break until the middle of September, a shorter period than 60 days, and the Minister could be working in advance with the Attorney General to introduce legislation that would function.

We were taunted somewhat by the Deputy and his colleague, Deputy Niall Collins, who asked what the Labour Party was doing and what it stood for. We stand for legislation that will work, not giving the impression to the 200,000 people we are all in the Chamber to defend and support that we can do something by way of legislation that could ultimately be faulty. Let us do it right and stop pretending that this is emergency legislation that could sort everything out in one day if passed. It cannot and will not.

If the Ceann Comhairle will indulge me, I wish to discuss another significant flaw in Deputy O'Dea's proposals to decriminalise breaches of the orders made. He is not wrong in seeking to do this, but he does not replace the provision with a proper civil enforcement mechanism. He stated an order would be made by the Labour Court. As he is aware, an order of the Labour Court stands for very little and is not enforceable in the courts. For 20 years our employment legislation has allowed people to take their Labour Court orders to the Circuit Court to have them transformed into court orders which could then be enforced against employers. I will not disrespect the Labour Court by stating one of its orders is not worth the paper on which it is written. It is important because it is an order, but it is not enforceable. The Bill's proposal to decriminalise would not replace the current measure with a proper enforcement mechanism. Clearly, the Bill must be examined and I support the Minister in what he intends to do.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important matter and commend Deputy O'Dea for introducing the Bill. In this difficult time for the country, it is important and welcome that those on the Opposition benches are contributing to the House as constructively as possible. More than ever before, we need such an approach during the coming years. However, the Minister's legal advice on this matter cannot be ignored. When we legislate on this matter, it is important to get it right, as Deputy White stated. There can be no room in the legislation for further problems to arise.

The Minister has stated he will take steps to legislate in this regard. That effort must be supported. He has put in place plans to ensure the legislation will be before the House as soon as possible. Since the Government's early days, the Minister has shown a strong desire to reform. By its nature, reform is never easy and requires great courage, leadership and determination. I am speaking on this matter because I want to outline to the Minister my support for what he is trying to do. He deserves great credit.

The fact that so many reforms must be undertaken by the Government is an indictment of previous Administrations. If the hard decisions were taken when they were necessary, as is the Government's job, we would not need to make so many reforms now. At least we now have a Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation who is willing to take the hard decisions and make reforms. This must be recognised and supported.

In my constituency I have met workers and union members who are concerned about the reform of JLCs and what could be coming down the line. They have already been hit with many charges, taxes and levies and are concerned about the number of other plans that could impact on their livelihoods seriously. While the Government needs to take their concerns on board, the message must be sent that it is determined to work with them to ensure people's livelihoods are protected and jobs in the economy are maintained. Now more than ever, reform is necessary if we are to ensure jobs are maintained. By increasing the minimum wage, we have sent a strong message to low paid workers to the effect that the Government is determined to protect them. We acknowledge that, if people do not have disposable incomes, our economic growth projections and the economy's future development cannot be maintained. Our proposals are aimed at growing the economy.

As a Deputy from County Kerry, I must mention how important the hospitality industry is to the county. We must retain competitiveness, although it has suffered in recent decades. The Government is doing its best to ensure competitiveness is restored and has already made efforts in that respect. We have taken action on the VAT rate and are determined to ensure jobs are sustained.

I grew up in a household that was heavily dependent on the hospitality industry. My father was a hotel porter in Killarney for almost 40 years and I acknowledge that it is difficult to work on Sundays. My father was hardly ever at home on a Sunday or on Christmas day or the other days when we expect families to be together. At the same time, we were grateful we had an income in the family from the hospitality industry and we must ensure those incomes and our competitiveness are maintained and for that reason, the Minister deserves our support to ensure the long-overdue and necessary reforms are put in place to secure a brighter future for the sectors affected by JLCs.

I welcome this Bill and the Government indication of support in so far as it represents at least some attempt to address the issues arising from the High Court judgment. That contrasts with the response of the Taoiseach last week when he said there would be no appeal by the State to the judgment. As things stand, the way is open for employers to disregard wage agreements and orders that have been put in place and to commence hiring people at the minimum wage. Action is needed to protect the wages and conditions of the tens of thousands of mainly low-paid workers affected by the judgment. The best way to do that is through legislation and in that regard the Bill that was put forward by my party to amend the Industrial Relations Acts represents the best means to ensure existing protections are given statutory affect.

The Bill we propose was put forward by the last Government and had the support of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. Given cross-party support, it would serve as an immediate response in the interim to address the situation created by the High Court judgment. What we are proposing has the support of the union that represents many of the workers affected by the High Court judgment. It is simple; the Bill should be brought forward, debated and measures introduced to address the issues that have arisen from the court judgments. The Fianna Fáil proposals offer a similar opportunity but this needs to be acted upon immediately. Given the House will not sit after Thursday that will not happen unless other less urgent business is set aside and legislation is passed before then to address the legal issues arising from the High Court judgment.

It is interesting to look back on the circumstances in which the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 was let fall by the wayside by the Fianna Fáil Government, especially in the context of the Bill proposed by the party tonight. The initial text of the Bill had trade union support but there were indications that the then Minister of State who was responsible for this area, Deputy Dara Calleary, intended to amend it to allow employers a derogation from wage agreements on the basis of the inability to pay. I drew attention to that during the debate on the Bill, pointing out that such a clause would undermine the system as it stood. Since then we have seen an attack on the JLCs and the established wages and conditions. That undermining of the JLCs, now underwritten by the High Court, had the support of the Fianna Fáil-Green Government and was subsequently backed by the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding, which called for a review of the system. It appears now that it is part of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation's plans.

There is considerable fear among low paid workers that the Minister's response will go beyond the Duffy report and will copperfasten the demands of the employers to take the ground from under the JLCs. It is important, therefore, if this Bill is acted upon, a similar opt out clause is not included. The onslaught on low paid workers is being excused as part of the measures designed to address the financial crisis that led to the EU-IMF intervention. How taking money from the pockets and purses of those who can least afford it will help to pay back an unsustainable debt has never been explained. Indeed, common sense would suggest that further depressing the wages of tens of thousands of workers will have a negative impact on the State revenues accrued through taxation and will destroy further jobs by reducing spending power, particularly among those who spend most of their income locally and which is directly responsible for the employment of large numbers of people in retail and other sectors.

It is also clear that some employers are using the current economic and financial crisis to undermine workers' wages and conditions across the board. The myth has been created that the mess we are in was in some way caused by low paid workers and workers in general. One example of the way in which some workers are being treated at present is the situation of former employees of Jane Norman, which operates over 20 stores and concessions in this country. On 27 June, Jane Norman Limited went into administration. The administrators, Zolfo Cooper, have kept some of the shops open but have failed to pay staff, who are owed money dating back to early May. Staff have been told they will have to retain money due to them, including holiday money, from the Government, when they are finally made redundant. The workers involved are in an impossible situation. They want to remain working as long as they can, but are being retained under unacceptable conditions to earn money through sales that will go to paying off creditors and from which they might get nothing. They cannot voluntarily leave their jobs because that would create difficulties with social welfare payments and would destroy their changes of redundancy.

That situation must be addressed legally to ensure any company that continues to trade under administration is obliged to pay first what is owed to the workforce. I met the workers in Tralee two weeks ago; some of them are from Deputy Griffin's constituency. They have worked since May for no pay. They were told by the company to pay themselves from the tills but if they do that they are guilty of fraud or a similar offences and could be brought before the courts. If they leave their jobs and try to get benefits, they will lose any chance of redundancy. They are in an impossible situation and they want to keep their jobs. The company, however, has said when the administrator has finished his work, they can claim their money from the administrator, as well as the statutory redundancy pay from the Government. That situation is untenable.

The Minister must intervene immediately to ensure former Jane Norman workers are paid what they are due prior to the administrator closing up shop for good and decamping with the proceeds made while the shops continued to operate. Government TDs must get the Minister to intervene in this issue immediately.

It is important to set the record straight and take a moment to outline how we ended up debating this Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. If the issue of JLCs and employment regulation orders had been properly and adequately dealt with by the previous Government, the issue would have been resolved for the 190,000 families who now face the stress of dealing with the outworking of the High Court ruling on the joint labour committees.

The previous Government, however, did what Fianna Fáil does best, and spoke out of both sides of its mouth. A Bill was drafted but was never brought to completion. Fianna Fáil, not being for real, failed to show the political will to proceed with the Bill. A vacuum was allowed develop and this was filled with a court challenge which had dire consequences for some of the most vulnerable employees in our workforce.

With the arrival of the Labour Party in Government, one might have expected a detailed and comprehensive response to the urgent problem. Shockingly, we have witnessed a Government riven by internal squabbling. Deputy Olivia Mitchell called for the complete disbanding of the JLCs. I am sure Labour Party TDs would find that difficult to swallow.

It is not going to happen.

The Minister is on record saying that he wants to see a reduction in the wages of some workers covered by the JLC agreements. This policy inertia has been allowed to develop under the cover that the problem is too legally complex to deal with. The result is the Labour Party and Fine Gael will head off on their holidays while hundreds of thousands of lower income families are left to ponder their own uncertain economic future.

When the High Court made its ruling, it should have been an alarm call for the Government. Sinn Féin, realising the seriousness of the situation, immediately contacted the Minister to seek a commitment that the Government would appeal the court ruling. He refused. At that stage, we asked him to introduce legislation to shore up the JLCs and protect the workers they serve. Yet again he refused and nearly 200,000 families were let down. We raised the issue on the Order of Business and under Leaders' Questions. Earlier today, I introduced a Bill in an attempt to bring pressure to bear on the Government to do the right thing.

Every step along the way, the Government has simply refused to rise to the challenge. Sinn Féin continues to meet and engage with unions and campaign groups to ensure that our actions are guided by those most affected. I was delighted to share a platform on Saturday with UNITE, Mandate and the Migrant Rights Centre when those groups endorsed Sinn Féin's attempts to have the issue of JLCs addressed through legislation.

There are 100,000 working poor in this State. These are people who cannot fully afford to feed their families. They have had to cut back on medication to have enough money to buy fuel in winter-time. This vacuum caused by the High Court ruling gives unscrupulous employers an opportunity to exploit workers. In addition, it gives such employers a competitive advantage over decent employers. Now is the time for politicians to safeguard the interests of workers. Now is the time for each TD to show leadership here and immediately enact legislation to protect the rights of employees.

Having studied the Fianna Fáil Bill, I can see clearly that it is not perfect, far from it. To vote against it, however, would be short sighted and would miss the point. Sinn Féin will therefore support this Bill on Second Stage. On Second Stage, we must ensure that the Bill is strengthened to reflect the court ruling and ensure that the strongest possible Bill is brought back to this House for a final vote. Likewise, the Sinn Féin Bill introduced to the House this afternoon can be built on and strengthened to ensure that JLCs are put on a legal footing which is beyond any further legal challenge.

The Bill before us is imperfect, but it is an attempt to deal with the problem confronting us. Sinn Féin will work with unions and campaigning groups so that the Bill, in its final form, will provide the strongest possible bulwark against any future attempt to undermine workers' pay and conditions.

I wish to share time with Deputy Tom Fleming.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I compliment Deputy O'Dea and his party colleagues for having brought this Bill before the House. I realise there is a problem with the recent court ruling but, as a small employer of five or six workers, I understand that we must have balance in this regard. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. I support the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and I welcome the fact that the Government does not oppose this measure. This area needs to be examined because we want to protect lower paid workers at all costs. I agree with the previous speaker that there is a new group of poor who are ordinary working people, small businessmen and small farmers. Many such people are being squeezed and, with talk of new bills to face every day, they just cannot continue.

Pressure will come on the Government anyway with cutbacks in the family income supplement and community welfare officers. We must examine these JLCs and EROs. In the past ten, 15 or 20 years, we have brought in many new regulations but, unlike our neighbours in Britain, we did not repeal any of the existing labour laws. Consequently, there is a plethora of legislation and it is impossible for employers, big or small, to deal with it because of the costs involved. A small employer with five or six workers would have to employ his or her spouse, or a full-time person, to deal with the paperwork. Most employers treat their workers fairly, although there are some unscrupulous ones that we condemn out of hand. A good relationship and bond between employers and employees is part of a successful business.

I have just attended the IFA evening at the Shelbourne Hotel which featured many small businesses from all over the country. They have been promoting fabulous hospitality, food, liqueurs, sweets and other produce. It is a pity you were not up there, a Cheann Comhairle, but it is still not too late to go. I saw apple juice being promoted from my own county of Tipperary, as well as strawberries. Many local entrepreneurs have been burnt by what happened last night and this morning — the shady dealing that went on with Superquinn going into liquidation. About €1 million is owed altogether to small suppliers. These small business people should not be forgotten when we bring this legislation through the House. I hope that on Second Stage we can bring in something to help them.

I want to talk about a proud industry we have in South Tipperary, which is the capital of the equine industry. They have a major issue with JLCs because most race meetings are held on Saturdays or Sundays. It is a matter of pride and joy for jockeys to get out and ride a horse and even more so if they can ride a winner. When they get the Sunday premium, they are happy to work for their stud and are not looking for anything extra. A large amount of training, grooming and practice goes into it so that the public can enjoy good horse racing, and those who wish to gamble can do so. Those people need to be protected. I also want to talk about members of the farming community who are trying to save their harvest. The weather is so inclement that they must work all kinds of unsocial hours. I welcome the initiatives for the tourism industry.

We must be reasonable and I think the Minister is being reasonable. I know he is under pressure in a coalition Government because I experienced the nuances of that myself. All I am seeking is fair play and an understanding that business people, especially small businesses, have to be supported. We must get rid of the shackles hindering business, such as the plethora of unnecessary legislation which is only making money for barristers who bring challenges in the High Court. We must see sense here. I am prepared to go the road with the Minister to stimulate small businesses, as well as nurturing the culture we had of employers treating their employees fairly, and of workers doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Many companies need to be supported in that respect, without using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

The proposed Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011 should have been discussed well in advance with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the employers' group IBEC. If that had been done, they could have gone through the technical wording in detail, as well as giving written submissions to the relevant Dáil committee.

The vast majority of politicians have no experience of, or competency in the industrial relations area or human resources management. My concern is that in making any amendment to the 1946 Act to conform to the High Court judgment, the amendment framed should not only be within the parameters of that judgment but in its unambiguous wording must also be compatible with the spirit and intent of the 1946 Act. In other words, the most vulnerable 200,000 workers in our society must be protected from a small minority of employers who can exploit them, including non-union members. The amendment must be framed to ensure that the 200,000 workers covered by employment regulation orders cannot have their entitlements detrimentally affected.

Many of these 200,000 workers are not unionised and have nobody to speak out on their behalf. I urge such people to seek union membership immediately. I am calling on the Minister for Finance to reverse the clause in the 2010 budget which removed income tax relief for trade union subscriptions. We tend to forget that in private industry only a minority of the workforce is unionised, leaving a large majority with no professional union representation.

Whereas the motivation behind the Bill is probably benign, unfortunately, we cannot support anything without having a professional input from the bodies previously referred to, in order to ensure that workers do not lose out on anything they currently have.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share