I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Shane Ross, Clare Daly and Richard Boyd Barrett.
Private Members’ Business
Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this new legislation which will provide legal protection for low-paid workers. This should be supported by all parties in the House as it protects the workers in the regulated sectors who are affected by the High Court judgment. The Government should face up to reality and assist hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers. Once again, the Labour Party has walked off the pitch. It should stop hiding behind Fine Gael on this priority issue.
The recent statements by the Minister for Social Protection were a disgrace, misinformed, dangerous in the current climate and, above all, insulting to the tens of thousands of people who are unemployed. This is not acceptable from the Minister and she should withdraw her remarks or resign. I was shocked and dismayed that a Labour Party Minister would say that. The more worrying aspect for the poorer section of society is what the Minister has planned next in her so-called reforms, which is the new code for cuts.
The late Deputy and former Minister, Mr. Frank Cluskey, in 1977 set up the community welfare service, which was to provide a safety net for the poorer and weaker sections of society and to help people on the margins. The current Minister plans to scrap these 1,000 front-line staff, with their transformation team, and — wait for it — turn them into social activation officers, which in fact means snoops. These welfare police will now become hit men and hit women against the poor and the Minister will have dismantled the last line of defence. Did anyone ever think they would see a day when a Labour Party Minister would slash and burn welfare services?
The Government cannot hide behind the troika of the IMF-EU-ECB. These are choices and many of us in the Independent group have put forward options on these choices in recent months. We have dealt openly with the debate on tax versus cuts and all proposals have been costed. We are not just against issues; we are also putting forward sensible solutions. However, hammering low-paid workers, the unemployed and the disabled should never be an option in any democratic republic.
This Bill seeks to help 250,000 workers over the summer period and will prevent exploitation. Kicking the now famous can down the road is not an option and definitely not a solution. I urge Members to support this legislation.
Prior to the High Court decision, I attended a large meeting in my constituency of people, mostly women, who were employed under the joint labour committee, JLC rules. All were low paid and all were concerned about maintaining their living standards. Some spoke of there being little incentive to work were they to take further pay cuts or were their incomes to be reduced further or eroded through levies or charges. Some were at pains to point out their employment was of a casual nature and their employer kept cutting their hours to the point where it was no longer worthwhile to work. Moreover, they told me that others were being employed at the minimum wage to replace them.
Since the High Court decision, Members have been informed that those who were employed under JLCs would be protected by their contract of employment. The experience I have just recounted outlines how vulnerable some of these workers are and demonstrates how in many cases their contracts are not worth the paper on which they are written. These workers were employed in the retail sector and spoke of how they used to enjoy their jobs but that it now has become a battle between themselves and their employer. Many were sick with worry about how they would pay their bills and mortgages or how they would feed their families.
While I support this Bill in principle, I acknowledge it is flawed. I note the Government has promised a more comprehensive Bill in the autumn and there is an absolute need to give guarantees to the approximately 200,000 people who are meant to be protected under the former JLCs. Moreover, it is essential that information be given to these people in the shortest possible time. When the Technical group devoted its Private Members' time to this issue, it was possible to discern a clear difference between Fine Gael and Labour Party Members as one party articulated the employers' side while the other articulated that of the employees. It is essential to outline what exactly will be the approach to give some comfort to these people who are concerned about their living standards. At present, it is as though it is the last secret of Fatima. The Government should outline exactly what is ahead for these people even if there will be a delay in bringing forward legislation.
On this issue, a little unlike Deputy Finian McGrath, I stand firmly behind the Labour Party. This is an extremely difficult problem and it would not be a good idea to have a knee-jerk reaction to a highly controversial court case of this nature. It appears as though this pertains to the discretion that is exercised by the joint labour committees and it probably will take some time to sort out this matter. In the present climate, there is a danger of creating an industrial relations atmosphere that is conducive to old-fashioned hostilities. In particular at present, on foot of the death of social partnership, a new plan and model for industrial relations probably is needed. This certainly will not be built on the old social partnership model, which now is dead and which bears much responsibility for the artificial boom because of excessive payments. However, it also demands a great deal of thought as to how to match the legitimate grievances of people for whom this Bill caters with the needs of small businesses.
At the time, many Deputies and Senators were lobbied extensively about the proposed increase to the minimum wage. I could not help but be split on that issue because on the one hand, as Deputy Catherine Murphy has so eloquently noted, the plight of people who are in receipt of the minimum wage is something that cannot be allowed as a civilised society. On the other hand, I also was impressed by small employers in the retail sector who came forward and stated with legitimacy and honesty that they could not afford to pay the premium rates that were being demanded for Sundays and so on.
I remind the Deputy that time for the debate is limited and only a few more minutes are left for the two remaining speakers in the slot.
This is a very difficult issue and Members must be balanced. They must think both for the guy on the minimum wage and the small businessman with a family who will go out of business and who will be placed in poverty if they push too far in this direction.
It appears as though Fianna Fáil does not seek to have this Bill passed through all Stages before the Dáil rises for the recess but rather through Committee Stage only. In that sense, anything that might come out of it would not take effect until the autumn in any case and could not offer additional protection to workers formerly covered by the JLCs and employment regulation orders, EROs. If this is the case, the Bill amounts to nothing more than a stunt.
Fine Gael's response has been to state that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, will instead introduce an interim protection in the autumn. The idea that the person whose stated objective is to neutralise the entire system of registered employment agreements, REAs, and EROs will somehow transform himself into its saviour is laughable.
Nonsense.
The High Court decision that the JLCs were unconstitutional represents an extremely serious attack on workers who already were highly vulnerable. Statistics were provided during the last debate on this topic that showed the enormous number of breaches that take place in these sectors in any case. In effect, employers now have been given the green light to decimate wages and conditions and this intention is spelled out clearly by organisations such as IBEC, which is lauding the fact that pay rates for new workers have fallen by as much as 20% to 30% in recent years. It is quite clear that over the summer, workers will face the issuing of new contracts. My point is that if Fianna Fáil is serious in this regard and is serious about introducing protection, the legislation must be pushed through all Stages before the Dáil rises for the summer.
A lot of politics is being played with this issue. The Government has of course questioned Fianna Fáil's credentials, and rightly so given that the latter reduced the minimum wage and signed up to the IMF-EU deal which demanded this so-called labour market restructuring. The Government also has described this Bill as being inadequate, which it is, but that is all politics. The Government has chosen not to oppose this Bill because it, and its Labour Party component in particular, is on a hook over this issue. This is because the base of the Labour Party's support in the trade union movement would explode with anger were it to oversee the dismantling or weakening of the JLCs. Were the Labour Party Members serious when stating they do not intend to oppose this Bill, they would be screaming from the rooftops both to see this Bill proceed beyond Second Stage and to demand the reconvening of the Dáil next week to push through this legislation, imperfect as it is, as a stopgap to protect the workers covered by the JLCs and REAs. Of course, none of them intend to do this because it is all about simply pushing the issue down the road before the real decisions are made in the autumn.
I believe I speak on behalf of low-paid workers who are affected by the JLCs and REAs and who are deeply fearful because their already miserable pay and conditions are under attack when I tell the Government that if it is serious about caring for such workers, it should give Members absolutely cast iron assurances that as a result of the review it is bringing forward, not a single cent will be lost from the incomes of low-paid workers. Moreover, it should provide assurances that none of the protections enjoyed by low-paid workers now covered by the JLCs or REAs will be taken away from them. This is the assurance they seek and I note the Minister, Deputy Bruton, has not given to them. This gives me reason to believe, as both Fine Gael and Labour Party Members are aware, that under the diktats of the EU-IMF, the Government intends to attack these low-paid workers, that is, those who already are the working poor.
The Deputy must conclude.
If the Government is not so minded, it should give this assurance now and should do something before the summer to ensure these protections remain in place while all its members go on holidays.
I wish to share time with Deputies Keaveney, Doyle, Nash, Áine Collins and John Paul Phelan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I have a couple of comments to make. First, the Government is not opposing this Bill because it recognises its intention is genuine. However, it does not believe it goes far enough and does not consider it to be sufficiently legally sound to achieve the job. Nevertheless, it recognises that this Bill constitutes a genuine attempt. There is nothing wrong with it on its own but it simply is not good enough. Rushing it through tonight or allowing it to proceed would only introduce more confusion and grey areas because it will not achieve the desired changes in this area. It will not deal with the judgment. It is piecemeal legislation and it will not provide clarity and direction. It is all right to move slowly in the right direction but moving fast in the wrong direction means one is no further on.
The Minister, Deputy Bruton, has committed to introducing legislation as soon as possible, and I understand this will be in the first week of the new Dáil session, which is only five or six weeks time. We are not taking a 12-week holiday as was the case in the past. For the sake of a few weeks let us get it right. I imagine Deputy O'Dea would like to get it right because it has been wrong for a long time. Others had the chance to fix it. They talked about it and even produced Bills and left them sitting there. This Government will do it because it said it would. This Government wants to see jobs being created and to protect jobs.
Deputy Ross referred to the debate about the minimum wage. The former Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment heard calls from various groups who wanted to reduce the minimum wage. We always asked them to prove to the committee that leaving the minimum wage alone was an impediment to job creation, but they could not prove it. We did the right thing by returning the rate to what it had been because it was wrong to lower it. It was not the IMF or the EU but rather a Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government that did that. It suggested it to the Commissioner and not the other way around. We put that right because we believe in protecting low-paid workers and we believe in protecting jobs.
The issue regarding the JLC agreements and other agreements is very complicated. The structures, rules and regulations, the red tape and the procedures are a deterrent and they are costing business, as are some of the rates. Deputy Ross gave the example of a local shop on a Sunday or a bank holiday Monday. In some cases such shops genuinely cannot afford to employ a person at twice the rate of pay or more in some cases. Something has to be done because this situation is costing jobs. Our duty is to create jobs and to protect jobs. I know that the owners of shops are working on Sundays or a bank holiday Monday rather than giving a job to a student or someone with no other source of income bar that one day a week. They are missing out on the opportunity for work.
I know that Christmas, Sunday and bank holiday work is unsocial work because I did that work for years when I was young. We have to recognise that fact but it is also a chance for a person to start a job and learn about the world of work. We owe a debt of gratitude to many of these businesses because they have given young people a start in a job.
It is right to reform this area to make it easier for jobs to be created. The evidence is that jobs have been lost and that is why it must be addressed, not because of a mean Government. The minimum wage was mean but we are planning a proper reform. The rates of pay will be dealt with by the joint labour committees. The Minister will not be lecturing us on the exact rates of pay because this will be done as part of the process. The reform has to be done. This Bill does not go far enough and it does not deal with all the implications of the judgment. We will not have the full details of the judgment until 25 July. It would be most unwise to push through legislation without having a proper, informed debate which would begin with a detailed judgment to hand.
There are two ways we can view the recent High Court ruling on the issue of JLCs and EROs. We can look at the situation as it currently pertains as a complete disaster or we can look at it as a new opportunity. In my view, we really do not have the time to waste looking at this as a disaster. It should be seen as an opportunity. I appreciate that Deputy Boyd Barrett is very concerned about the situation, as are we all. I remind him it was not the Dáil which dismantled the JLCs but rather the High Court. I hope there is broad agreement in the House that this is a matter to be addressed as comprehensively and speedily as possible once we return in September. Admittedly, however, there is no straightforward, quick-fix solution, as Deputy Finian McGrath would like to believe. The complexity of the issues surrounding the High Court ruling on the joint labour committee agreements cannot be understated. It is no exaggeration to say that we have a mountain to climb over the course of the summer recess to put the correct legislation before the House at the earliest opportunity. However, we should not use any excuse to delay action because it would be regarded as a fault of this House if there were to be an attack on the working poor before the publication of the legislation.
I am surprised that someone with the legal wisdom of Deputy Willie O'Dea, whom I have always considered to be a person of great legal mind and a good political operator, has failed to foresee the sequence of events which led to this situation. Fianna Fáil had the time and the opportunity to enact the required change but it passed up on that opportunity. It cannibalised its own Bill in the process and, in effect, its members have done a cut and paste job to take advantage of vulnerable working people. I am not going to argue with Deputy O'Dea on that point because we need to focus on how we can help the situation. The Members of this House were not elected to talk about Fianna Fáil but rather to protect those in society who are unable to protect themselves.
The High Court ruling does not provide an opportunity for reform. We have to set out a goal to limit any unfair treatment by opportunistic employers and we need to decide how quickly we can put strong legislation in place. We are faced with an opportunity to overhaul comprehensively an archaic and broken system. The High Court has decided it is broken. With the correct approach we can set down new, modernised wage setting mechanisms in a constitutional manner. This is an opportunity to restore full decency and fairness to the system, for workers and employers alike, and to introduce mechanisms which realistically reflect the challenges of a modern economy and society.
We have had the dialogue and the debate. We are all in broad agreement on the necessity of reforms. Despite the difficulties we face and the legal complexity surrounding the issues, this is not an insurmountable challenge. The crucial point is we must move quickly.
Any new system developed over the course of the summer must ensure unreservedly that workers in JLC sectors end up earning no less than their current wages. A new system should allow for equal if not greater levels of pay for workers who are the real backbone of this economy. When this issue is discussed in September, I do not want to hear the term "pay flexibility" thrown around as corporate and political language in an attempt to attack the working poor. This group has been hit the hardest as a consequence of the downturn in the economy. These are the lowest paid workers in society who are least deserving of a pay cut as a consequence of the failure of the previous Administration.
I wish to highlight a recent League of Credit Unions survey which found that more than 585,000 people surveyed see no future for themselves or their families in this country. This is a shameful number. It is up to this Government to put a stop to this thinking. We will not do so by undermining the ability of ordinary workers to live stable and financially secure lives without the worry that their jobs will be taken from them or that they will be subject to cuts in their wage rates.
The Minister and his Department have a mountain to climb but there is nothing that cannot be achieved. I am confident a political solution will be found and that workable, robust and constitutionally viable reforms will be put in place when the Government returns to business in September.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Deputy Ross is correct that this is a complicated issue. There is a balance to be struck in trying to ensure those who are protected under what was the JLC system continue to be protected to ensure it is more attractive to seek a job than not to, which would be the risk if the JLC system were to be turned upside down. We would be in a much worse position on foot of this judgment had the Duffy-Walsh review not been initiated. Otherwise we might have been looking for a suspension of Standing Orders to allow the House to discuss the situation because we had nothing prepared. As it is, quite an advanced amount of preparation work has been done and we are awaiting the final report and conclusions from the consultation process that took place on foot of the report.
We all agree on certain things. The areas to which the main EROs and REAs apply have suffered the greatest job losses since 2008. There has been a 60% loss of employment in construction, and 15% in the retail and wholesale sectors. Catering and hotels have seen a 20% loss. Something is broken and needs fixing. Any employer will say — I am sure no employee will disagree — that there is too much bureaucracy in employment law. While employment legislation was introduced, the law it replaced still seems to remain on the Statute Book. The JLCs were introduced before we had a minimum wage and legislation to protect the rights of workers in the workplace and to ensure they and the employers were given equal opportunity to ensure fair play existed.
There are people on the minimum wage to whom this JLC structure does not apply. For 4% of the working population, employers have been able to avail of a 50% PRSI reduction. It does not apply to people on JLCs. As a young and not so young fellow, I worked behind a bar on a Sunday, which was the only day of the week I could work. Under the current regime I would not be able to work and there are many people in that category. Deputy English spoke about the people for whom weekend work is critical to allowing them to go to college or whatever, and we need to be cognisant of that.
We need to strike a balance and it will be difficult. It is accepted that people come from different perspectives on this issue. People in this Chamber can be pigeonholed politically. If we get too political on this, we will not resolve it. We will have a halfway to nothing solution that will still be archaic and unfit for purpose. Let us realise that and try to work it together. It is not often I call for all-party agreement, but on this one we need to have it.
As a contribution to the challenge we face over the need to protect and secure the wages and conditions of those employed in areas governed by the JLC and ERO system, I welcome the publication of this Bill and the opportunity to speak on its provisions. Elements of the Bill attract my support and that of the Labour Party and Government in general. The basic principals are philosophically sound and it represents a reasonable effort to address some of the fall-out from the Feeney judgment two weeks ago.
However, even to the untrained eye, the frailties inherent in the legislation are all too apparent. In whatever way we slice and dice it, the Bill is essentially a reheated version of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009. However, that was then and this is now, and in light of the Feeney judgment, we have entered an entirely new dimension. The JLC and ERO system which has served our economy and society well since its inception has been struck down as unconstitutional. Despite what some members of the Opposition would have us believe, the direct implications of the judgment are such that no quick-fix solution exists that can be taken off the shelf, dusted down and represented as something it is not.
We need fresh thinking to deal with a fundamentally altered scenario while achieving the same outcomes enjoyed by those employed under the JLC and ERO system. It would be disingenuous and dangerously misleading for anyone in this House to suggest that this, or indeed any other legislative proposition that has been put forward, whether in this House or outside in recent days, is sufficiently robust to achieve the outcome on which there is a degree of unanimity around the House.
I accept the Bill represents a genuine effort to have one substantial element of the Feeney judgment settled, which is the issue to do with the glaring absence of strong guiding policies and principles from this law-making body in terms of wage setting mechanisms. This is all well and good up to a point. However, any reasonable analysis of this effort presented to us by Fianna Fáil is completely silent on the entire issue of property rights. Not just in this instance, but in a whole raft of trade union and employment rights legislation, this constitutional issue of property rights has reared its unwelcome head. It is grotesque and, frankly, disturbing to me that in the context of this and other matters, the issue of the protection of individual property rights appears to have primacy in our Constitution over the rights of the individual citizen to a decent living wage and, moreover, the right to have those circumstances protected. This is a matter that should be pursued and examined shortly by the constitutional convention.
Last night Deputies O'Dea and Niall Collins, from the party that brought us such hits as the slashing of the national minimum wage and the blanket bank guarantee, were straining at the leash to have a go at the Labour Party, asking us what we stand for. It could be argued that the crocodile tears they shed on this serious matter are an insult to honest crocodiles everywhere. As Deputy White said yesterday evening, we stand for legislation that will work and not for legislation that is clearly frail and frankly a bit on the anaemic side. We will not do a Grand Old Duke of York on it and pretend that if this so-called emergency legislation is passed, everything will be fine in the morning, which it will not.
Notwithstanding all of that, the Bill requires additional examination and has a degree of merit, and I support what the Minister is doing now and what we will be doing over the summer period to address comprehensively the issues facing us and the 200,000 workers who need our protection and need a new structure to protect and vindicate their interests and rights robustly and vigorously.
We all agree this is a very important issue on which a balance needs to be found. It is vital that the Government reforms the present system in order that businesses that are struggling will be able to hold on to existing jobs, create new jobs and encourage others to set up business. The downturn in the economy has had a profound effect on the labour market, with areas such as retail, accommodation, food and construction being among those hardest hit. For example, there has been a 60% loss of employment in construction and a 15% to 20% loss in the wholesale and retail sectors. Hotels and catering have seen a 20% loss in employment alone in the past three years. While demand in these sectors is clearly a key factor, labour costs represent a high proportion of total costs. Some 39% of restaurants no longer open on Sundays owing to labour costs.
In the present environment it is vital to ensure that these structures are flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances and that they reflect the realities of our present day economy. The recently published live register figures make it clear that the time for business as usual in any sector of the economy is long past. The challenge facing the Government is indeed enormous. We were elected to change current practices and it is clear from the Duffy-Walsh report that reform is needed. The policies pursued over the past 14 years by our predecessors in government have got us into the mess we are now experiencing. The previous Government had ample time to pass such a Bill through the Oireachtas, but as usual it procrastinated. It will take several years of good government and good policies to put things back on track.
The Bill is largely cut and pasted from the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 which was introduced by the previous Government in August 2009 in response to the commencement of the Quick Service Food Alliance case in December 2008. However, despite being welcomed by all sides, the Bill was never progressed by that Government beyond Second Stage in the Dáil and it lapsed with the end of the previous Dáil in early 2011. With 446,800 people on the live register at present, we must realise that action is needed urgently which is why the Government will address the issue early in September. We need to provide people with the opportunity to get back to work, and job creation must be on the top of all our agendas. To that end, I welcome this debate.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I feel a sense of déjà vu. I agree with Deputy Keaveney’s comments that the Bill is rather similar to one introduced in 2009. I was Fine Gael’s enterprise spokesman in the Seanad when it discussed Second Stage of similar legislation, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which was agreed by all parties in both Houses. For Fianna Fáil to propose what is more or less the same Bill is a bit rich, as is its claim that it supports poorly paid workers. For 14 years, Fianna Fáil had the opportunity to support them and could have introduced legislation in the past year and a half, but it did not.
Given our support for the Bill a year and a half ago, we will not vote it down tonight, but the legislation's thrust does not address most of the key issues raised by the Feeney judgment in the High Court a couple of weeks ago. Deputy Doyle was correct to state that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, had done a great deal of work on this area in recent months. Thankfully, when the Houses return in September, the Minister will be in a position to introduce a more detailed and comprehensive Bill to address a complex set of questions.
Approximately 450,000 people in our society are out of work. It must be the clear priority of everyone in both Houses to ensure we do everything we can during the lifetime of this Oireachtas to return as many of those people to work as possible. I support the Minister's efforts to reform the JLC structure. While debating the previous Bill in the Seanad a year and a half ago, I highlighted to the then Minister, Mr. Batt O'Keeffe, the inadequacies of the JLC system whereby different payments are made in different parts of the country based purely on a job's geographical location and not on the role being performed. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, is correct to try to reform that structure.
I do not agree with some Deputies who said people are playing politics with this issue. The Government has already shown itself to be committed to protecting the poorest workers by increasing the minimum wage to the level from which our predecessors reduced it. We are committed to ensuring the lowest paid workers are looked after, but our overarching commitment must be to the 450,000 people who do not have jobs but want them.
Before attending this debate, I spoke with a friend who has been offered a job in London and is about to leave. I have countless friends living in that city and other parts of the world because of the policies pursued for 14 years by Deputy O'Dea's party in government. It is disingenuous to introduce this legislation and claim that Fianna Fáil is looking after the poorest workers in the land when it is responsible for so many of them needing to leave the country in the first place.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. The JLCs need to be put on a strong constitutional footing. Until this is done, uncertainty will reign, which will be of no benefit to anyone concerned. We have witnessed the death of social partnership, although I have my doubts about whether it was ever a real social partnership. It based its foundations on the notion that money could solve all problems. This was true for a time, but we no longer have money and must now face the challenge of making the system work. We must look forward and there is no point in looking back, as it will not put bread on the tables of those who constantly worry about how they will keep their homes etc.
I grow disappointed with Deputies jumping up and down and getting excited about protecting workers while not realising that we are all here to stand up for workers. As an employer, it disappoints me to see some Deputies who do not know how to create a job speaking on the subject and accusing everyone else of having no conscience on the matter. I have trained employees who then left because of €1 or less per hour at high rates, but the circumstances have reversed. Long-term employees bring stability and continuity to a business. If a business has long-term employees, it is operating well.
The question of employers needs to be addressed, as it is not in many employers' interests to decimate workers' wages. We all must come through this financial crisis, which we will do by co-operating. Some people will try to abuse the system.
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
Regarding atypical hours, countries like Spain virtually shut down on Sunday whereas we have become used to our country working throughout Sunday. People should only work all day on Sunday if something critical needs to get done that day. One cannot demand money from a business if doing so will cause that business to fail in the long term. As many Deputies will realise, the countryside has seen the systematic destruction of its shops and villages. It has no more shops. We need to determine what we can do about thisissue.
Optimising job creation is a skill and must be the priority. We must use our heads in reforming the JLCs, which will play a fundamental role in where we go from this point. We cannot buy job creation with money. The farming industry is a good example of a cyclical system — some years one is down, some years one is up. We need to examine JLCs in the long term and determine how to work through the economic crisis together.
I wish to share time with Deputies Sean Fleming, McConalogue, Kirk and Calleary. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might tell me when my five minutes have concluded.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this important legislation and I compliment my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, on drafting it. The briefings prepared by the Labour and Fine Gael research offices on the Bill's contents and its alleged similarity with the 2009 Bill are incorrect. Only one section of this Bill is similar to part of the 2009 legislation.
Deputy Nash stated that, during the summer, Government Deputies will work on this issue collectively. There has not been much evidence to date of collective thinking, given the rush by numerous Labour Party Deputies to criticise the Minister, Deputy Bruton, via their press office. If they were so concerned about the inadequacy of this legislation, I am surprised by their support for it.
Following the 7 July High Court decision, the Minister gave a solemn commitment publicly and in his meetings with senior trade unionists that legislation would be introduced immediately to deal with this emergency issue, but it is another post-election Government commitment that will not be honoured. Deputy John Paul Phelan claimed the Minister had been working hard on this issue, but there is no evidence of such. No preparatory work on the High Court case's anticipated outcome seems to have been done.
Every Member has received e-mails, correspondence and telephone calls from all individuals across the country.
Thousands of low paid workers are concerned and fearful about this decision. This Bill was drafted to protect those workers. Government inaction on the issue is leaving low paid workers in a precarious position, as outlined to us in correspondence from many individuals; the trade unions went as far as describing the situation as devastating for workers.
The JLC system was established in 1946 when the late Seán Lemass was Minister for Industry and Commerce. In a total revamping of industrial relations legislation of the time, he established the committees. Not alone were they established to set wages, they were established to deal with conditions, another important issue.
The JLCs have been an important part of the industrial relations architecture since that period. With some revamping they set minimum rates of pay, terms and conditions for classes of workers operating in more than one trade. The individual JLCs are composed of employer and worker representatives, generally from representative organisations and trade unions, and an independent chairman. The JLCs propose minimum pay and conditions that are then drafted into employment regulation orders by the Labour Court, commonly referred to as EROs. Enforcement is not through the State industrial relations machinery but through the labour inspectorate in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The areas covered by the committees include hospitality, the food and retail sectors, clothing and contract cleaning. They were hugely important in many areas of the economy.
This emergency legislation is needed because the High Court ruled that the JLC system of setting wages was unconstitutional. As a result, workers whose remuneration was governed by employment regulation orders on or before 7 July no longer have the statutory benefits of those employment regulation orders. This Bill provides for the amendment of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 so the statutory mechanism in place for the fixing of remuneration by an employment regulation order is consistent with the requirements of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Bill also decriminalises any failure on the part of an employer to comply with an ERO as recommended in the Duffy-Walsh report.
If this Bill is enacted it will allow the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation to make new employment regulation orders in respect of all such workers under a new statutory mechanism that takes into account and rectifies the failings in the 1946 and 1990 Acts. It is important the case was taken by companies in the catering sector when it can apply to so many workers in different sectors. This is important to a huge number of workers, generally in the lower paid sectors of the economy, and I am glad to support this legislation.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011. I compliment Deputy O'Dea for being so quick to introduce this legislation. One section is based on previous legislation but much of it is new and was put together in light of the recent High Court judgment.
I commend him for moving so quickly on the issue to protect people's rights. It is not only a question protecting the pay rates of employees but also the businesses of the employers. It is important people recognise this is not an employee versus employer situation. Everyone must be balanced in our discussions. There are benefits in this legislation for employees and, equally, there are benefits for employers in the short term.
Without this legislation there is a gap in the system and those good employers who want to pay people the rates that had already been agreed and who want to tender for a contract on the basis of those rates could find unscrupulous employers submitting a tender based on lower wages that are not covered in previous agreements. Good employers with long-term employees could find themselves losing business because they are being undercut by those who will take advantage of the lack of legislation or an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The situation was so serious following the High Court decision that the Government should have lodged an appeal. That would have bought time to draft legislation and, in the meantime, the existing regime would have remained in place. By the time we return in autumn, the legislation could have been finalised to deal with these issues and could have overtaken the appeal. I see no reason why the Government will not lodge an appeal on this issue in the morning to show it is committed to protecting the agreements. That does not prevent it from coming forward with new legislation to improve the situation.
People have claimed the legislation is not perfect; they agree with the principles but they have found areas where the phraseology is not sufficient. That is the purpose of this House. The legislation can be published then teased out on Committee Stage, with amendments made, so that by the time it completes its passage through the Oireachtas, it will be better. If Deputies on the Government side refuse to support legislation on Second Stage because there are some imperfections in it, no Bill will ever be passed because I have never seen legislation passed being the same as legislation initiated. That is the essence of a democratic parliament, that it would make changes to legislation. Anyone who had an issue with the Bill would have been able to deal with it on Committee Stage.
People understand the gist of what we are talking about but I got an education in employment regulation orders, registered employment agreements and joint labour committees when issues arose in the catering trade when lots of hotel and restaurant owners in the midlands came to me to complain about NERA inspections. If a wedding took place on a Saturday and it spilled over until 12.15 a.m. on the Sunday morning, NERA said those staff must be paid the Sunday rate because they had been there for half an hour after midnight. In some cases the employees had left the business three years previously and the employers were told to find those people wherever they were in the world and to send them cheques. Employers were made to feel like criminals because they had not paid people their proper wages but those were the wages that were agreed and understood.
I accept some of the legislation was drafted by the last Government but the current Government and its legal advisors should have been ready for this decision. The Duffy-Walsh report had been published and the review was underway. The Government should have drafted legislation on that basis and should have been ready to move the next day if it did not want to go to the Supreme Court.
It decided to do neither, not to appeal to the Supreme Court and not to introduce amending legislation in the meantime that would meet the constitutional requirements highlighted in the High Court. That is why so many workers are in this difficult situation. This was struck down for constitutional reasons but I do not hesitate to say that the legislation, had it been tested with the full rigour of the law, would not have stood up in any court of law and the Department must have known that for a time and should have been ready to bring forward legislation.
Owners of hotels and restaurants, in particular, came to me in the last couple of years and when I pointed out their sector representative had approved of the wage agreement at a JLC, some of them who were new in the business did not know there was a JLC covering it and did not know there was a representative for them on a JLC. If this had been tested, the practicality of implementing these agreements would have been utterly, 100% defective. They were not representative bodies because the majority of people allegedly represented by the employers' representatives were not represented by them. Representation should mean that people are being represented and not that representatives are there in name only. It would have been struck down on that point.
The Government has choices to make and has made a choice concerning these particular workers. The Government came in with a pension levy, which is fine. It was its decision, as it was to reduce VAT, which is fine also. It also increased the minimum wage, but it has decided not to do anything for this group of 200,000 workers. One must ask therefore why theGovernment is singling out this group of workers to be left high and dry over the summer months.
If the Government wanted to deal with this matter it could have done so, but it has made choices. Neither the IMF nor anyone else is stopping the Government from doing this, so all it takes is the political will. It is a pity, however, that in this case it is not in evidence today.
I am also concerned about the pension schemes that are now only one step away from being struck down by any challenge, say, in the construction industry. A lot of work has gone into that over the years whereby employers in the construction industry contributed to a pension fund for their employees. People contributed to those funds over a period of time, but the same threat hangs over those pension schemes as with other agreements that have not been specifically brought before the courts. People therefore have a legitimate concern about current and future contributions, as well as the management of those pension schemes, especially in the construction sector. That matter has not been highlighted to any great extent, however.
I accept that the overwhelming majority of employers are good business people. They create jobs and most of them are responsible, but there is an unscrupulous element who will try to win a contract at a lower price by undercutting, getting out of their pension liabilities and avoiding paying traditional industry rates. In addition, such employers may use foreign nationals to clean local authority and government offices.
Where contracts are being paid for by public funds, whether it is to build a school or pay catering staff in a Government office, agency or local authority, there should be some method of on-site inspection to ensure staff in those areas are being paid the proper rate along with proper social welfare deductions. It is important to give fair play to good employers.
I compliment Deputy O'Dea for bringing forward this Bill. I acknowledge the Government's goodwill in not voting it down, but I would like them to follow through by letting the Bill progress to Committee Stage.
I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill in the limited time available. I support the Fianna Fáil-sponsored Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011. I wish to compliment our colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, on bringing this legislation before the House with a considerable degree of urgency. The reason we are pushing ahead with this Bill is because of the ineptitude of the current Government in dealing with this crisis. Following the ruling on 7 July in the High Court, some 200,000 people are at risk and face lower rates of pay and inferior working conditions. The Government promised to address the situation with the utmost urgency, but that simply has not happened.
Deputy O'Dea has introduced this legislation to remedy the constitutional issues related to JLCs in order to protect workers. Unions have describe the situation as devastating for employees. It is worth bearing in mind that it was Fianna Fáil, under the late Seán Lemass, that introduced the JLC system in 1946.
Prior to the High Court ruling it was clear there was a major rift brewing between the coalition parties over the reforms of the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to the JLC system, which went beyond those proposed by the Duffy-Walsh report. Workers already face hard times from the recent ECB interest rate increases. In addition, imminent household utility charges are coming down the tracks, including for water and perhaps septic tank charges in rural areas.
Fine Gael and Labour have broken a number of promises in relation to the JLCs. Those who care about the people affected would like to see the Government focus specifically on this issue. Who will represent the interests and needs of the 200,000 people who are directly affected? Following the ruling, the Government promised that it would move immediately to introduce temporary measures to protect vulnerable workers.
The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, said the matter was being explored "with the utmost urgency" and an announcement would be made as soon as a specific course of action had been decided upon. However, the Government has reneged on this, saying that no legislation will be brought forward before the summer recess. Clearly, the Minister simply does not understand the meaning of the term "urgent". It is not good enough that thousands of vulnerable workers will be left in a precarious position while the Government goes off on its summer break. The Government had acknowledged the seriousness of the situation, but is still dragging its heels.
On 12 July 2011, the Taoiseach told the Dáil:
The vulnerability of some workers is of concern... There are now limited protections for workers because of contracts entered into. This is a matter the Government feels should be responded to as quickly as possible. It will not, however, be possible for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to have the matter rectified before the summer recess.
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 that they were not necessary. The study is entitled “Minimum labour standards in a social partnership system: the persistence of the Irish variant of wages councils”. Its authors, Michelle O’Sullivan and Joseph Wallace, found that the overwhelming majority of trade union and independent members believed JLCs were necessary. Employer members were most likely to hold the view that JLCs were no longer necessary, but there was no consensus among them. A substantial minority of one third of employer respondents believed JLCs were necessary. The reasons with the strongest employer support — 33% of those covered — were that “JLCs are necessary because they tailor minimum pay and conditions to the specific industry/employment covered”, and that “JLCs are necessary because they try to prevent employer undercutting”. Other well supported reasons were that “JLCs provide a negotiating forum for generally non-unionised workers”, and that “JLCs set more minimum conditions of employment than provided in employment legislation”.
As Members will have gleaned from Opposition contributions, we are all supportive of what Deputy Willie O'Dea is proposing in this Private Members' Bill. We are glad the Government has agreed to allow it to progress to Second Stage, but there are other stages to be negotiated. Hopefully, the Government will recognise the merit of the legislation, support it and allow it through all stages.
In the context of a debate on JLCs and employment rights generally, it is important to emphasise that the vast majority, by which I mean 90% plus, of employers are decent and committed to the well-being of their employees. They are conscious of how that well-being contributes to the overall success of their businesses. The happiness of employees contributes to the success of service industries and other areas covered by JLCs.
Over the past three years, the vast majority of employers have faced unprecedented challenges, as they have tried to keep their doors open and retain people in employment. The machinery around EROs and JLCs, which has been ruled down by the recent judgment, proved itself to be inflexible and unhelpful in that task. I came across many situations, both as a Deputy and a Minister, where there was workplace agreement within companies on a temporary adjustment or change in conditions, but this could not be pursued because of the limitations of the then existing legislation.
We are lucky to have an excellent team of departmental officials who are dealing with this area. We have prepared legislation in this respect. Over the past two nights, I have listened to the cri du coeur from Labour Party Deputies in particular, bewailing where that legislation went. Because of our wish to consult with many organisations, including their own military wing in SIPTU, we were delayed in preparing and introducing that legislation. We were ultimately overtaken by the financial, economic and political events of last autumn.
It is a difficult circle to square. On the one hand, we do not want to give an unfair competitive advantage to unscrupulous employers by allowing them to drive a coach and four through employment rights legislation. However, we must give a chance to businesses that are struggling and that want to do the decent thing. The redesign of JLCs must incorporate flexibilities and must show a recognition that the economic ways of doing things today are very different from those of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when this system took hold.
We now have the judgment and there are several operational issues I would like to put to the Minister of State. I appreciate he might not be able to give us a response this evening, but if we could get it before the end of the recess, that would be great. What is the status of any ongoing National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, investigations into breaches of JLC regulations? Can he confirm that NERA has begun to withdraw prosecutions related to JLC regulations and pay rates? Given that the system has been ruled as unconstitutional, is it possible that any company or organisation previously found guilty of offences under the legislation might have recourse to seek repayment of damages, fines and legal fees?
The judgment has presented us with a good chance to redraw the industrial relations system. We should never waste a crisis and we should get the combined knowledge of everyone involved to produce a system that is fit for purpose in 21st century Ireland. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Ger Deering to bring the various employment rights agencies together. That system is incredibly complex and it does not assist employees seeking redress, nor does it assist employers. The Bearing Point report, which was prepared by the last Government, as well as the Croke Park agreement and the changes that this is making to Departments, will provide Mr. Deering with a good road map in that area.
We must be realistic. Our economy is in such a situation that this requires a rapid response. It requires a response that realises that inflexibility costs jobs and that the old ways of doing things has to be different. We can do things differently by offering protection to employees and by deterring rogue employers, but let us do so quickly and without any further unnecessary delay.
I commend Deputy O'Dea on his prompt response to the decision by the High Court to rule joint labour committee agreements as unconstitutional by bringing forward this Bill. It is particularly unfortunate, as we come into the last week of this Dáil session, that this decision has come upon us and it has made for a difficult scenario. I am disappointed that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, in spite of his commitment to deal with this urgently following the ruling, has delayed it until the autumn.
The JLCs and employment agreements go back a long time, while it is more than 100 years since the minimum wage was first introduced in Britain and Ireland. The JLC structure came into place in 1946. It served a real purpose by offering protection to employees and ensuring those who have demands on them due to the nature of their work have fair and equitable employment conditions for the job they carry out. However, it has also served many employers well. We want to achieve a situation whereby the industrial relations structure of the State allows for employers to operate in a way which ensures they provide an efficient service to their customers, but which also ensures employees have good terms and conditions in order that they can have the quality of life that all citizens wish to achieve.
It is not surprising that a study published in the Industrial Relations News found that there was much less support for JLC agreements among employers than among employees, but it also found that there was significant support for those agreements among employers, with over one third of employers expressing a need for them. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that well-treated employees are important for any business. In the absence of such agreements, these employers want to ensure that in providing a business and a service to their customers, they are also providing a good standard of employment to their employees and are not undercut by other people who may be less scrupulous. This can lead to a race to the bottom.
A rational understanding of the merit of JLCs shows that we need to continue with this kind of system. However, we must also ensure the system is responsive and there have been issues with it over recent years. JLCs were in place in the building industry which led to inflated prices and costs for construction. As the squeeze came on that industry, many employers and employees found it difficult to come to new agreements which reflected the times in which we were living, even though many wanted to do so.
We have an opportunity to bring in a framework which ensures that employees are protected but which also works well for employers who have at heart the concern for employees. Unfortunately, the Minister's reluctance to move on this quickly will mean that over the next few months, new employees will be employed under conditions very different to those with existing conditions. Employees could be working side by side under very different terms. I urge the Minister of State to give this urgent consideration and I commend Deputy O'Dea on bringing the Bill before the House.
I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this debate. The Government has stated it will not be opposing Second Stage of this Bill. Speakers on the Government side of the House have expressed their appreciation for the intention behind Deputy O'Dea's Bill, since its aim is to protect vulnerable workers. However, as the Taoiseach and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, have both stated in the House, the legal advice available to the Government is crystal clear. The Bill as drafted is not sufficiently robust to deal with the problem Deputy O'Dea seeks to solve. While the intentions are good, unfortunately, the Bill is not adequate.
The measure proposed by Deputy O'Dea is premature. The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Feeney on 7 July 2011 has so far only been made available in draft form. It has not been finalised. The declaration to which the High Court has said the plaintiffs are entitled has also to be finalised. The Bill is, moreover, insufficient as it does not address the potentially far-reaching consequences of the recent High Court judgement, nor is it likely to prove a bulwark against further legal challenges. We need legislation in this area that will withstand challenge. There is no point in proceeding with half-measures that will only be found to be faulty before long. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011 is not adequate to meet the need arising from the recent High Court judgment as it does not contain a sufficiently comprehensive range of reform proposals and cannot guarantee that the limited additional safeguards it seeks to put in place would survive legal challenge. Deputy O'Dea's Bill relies on a "cut and paste" approach by importing the main provisions of the now lapsed Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, without taking into account the series of specific changes to the legislative framework put forward in the recommendations of the independent review report. It also fails to respond effectively to the more difficult issues raised in the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Feeney, delivered on 7 July 2011.
Concerns were raised yesterday and again this evening by a number of Deputies regarding the potential for exploitation of vulnerable workers by unscrupulous employers. While the vast majority of workers behave responsibly, there will undoubtedly be a small minority who may seek to exploit the High Court decision.
Workers covered by an employment regulation order, ERO, that fixed minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to be protected by their individual contracts of employment, whether written or verbal, which in many cases already incorporate the minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment set by whatever ERO may have covered their employment. Any question of a change to an employee's contractual entitlement is essentially a matter to be agreed between each employee and their employer where this is not already a matter dealt with through collective agreements.
Where an employee is concerned about a possible breach of his or her existing contract of employment he or she can make a complaint under employment law by direct access to the employment rights bodies or in the law courts. Any workers seeking information about how they can bring complaints about variations in pay or deductions made without their agreement should contact NERA.
The fact that the process of making EROs has been found by the High Court to be unconstitutional, together with the identified lack of adequate Oireachtas scrutiny of this process, only underscores some of the main features of the recommendations for reform that were put forward by the independent review report on these statutory wage setting mechanisms.
Deputies on different sides of this House have recalled the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which was introduced by the last Government, but allowed to lapse after being left on the Order Paper for 12 months. That Bill had sought to address the vulnerability of both the JLC and REA systems. What is now required is a comprehensive reform measure that can address all of the recommendations for reform that were put forward by the independent review report on these statutory wage setting mechanisms as well as the implications of the recent High Court judgment.
The comprehensive reform proposals that have already been the subject of discussions with stakeholders and at Government will go some way in addressing the weaknesses identified by the court, and would therefore restore protection for workers in the relevant sectors.
Now the priority is to proceed with the preparation of comprehensive reform proposals since the implications of the High Court judgment for our wage setting mechanisms are not confined to the joint labour committee system.
The wide-ranging recommendations of the independent review report underscored the need to bring forward a substantive reform measure. The High Court ruling has posed an even greater challenge. Premature half-measures that tackle only some of these serious issues will not suffice to meet that challenge.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has said it considers that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 can serve as a foundation for the necessary further work. ICTU considers, however, that the best course of action would now be to bring forward substantive legislation to deal with the problem. This means comprehending the recommendations of the independent review report by Kevin Duffy and Dr. Frank Walsh in the form of substantive legislation. Taking into account the High Court judgment, the Government is determined to proceed with urgency to a substantial reform of the current JLC/REA regulatory system in order to protect existing jobs in these vulnerable sectors of the economy and to increase the likelihood of employment in these sectors being increased. The Government's intention is that legislation will be introduced to the Dáil very early in the next term with prioritised enactment thereafter.
On the question Deputy Calleary raised, I will forward him that detail.
Tá áthas orm an deis cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille. We should reflect on where this process started. The starting point was when the previous Government instituted a review of the JLC system but what was not envisaged was that the total system would collapse. All of us agree there is need for change but change should happen in a controlled and focused way. Because of a court case taken and a ruling in the High Court that has not been appealed by the Government, the whole edifice has been knocked down. All we have been told is that if we wait long enough we will get a new edifice. The strategy being put forward by the Government is that we should wait and it will create a new edifice, but my concern is that the starting point of that edifice will not be the situation that pertained until the High Court gave its ruling, which was that there were very specific protections for workers, which might have been amended or adjusted to deal with the new issues that have arisen in our time. The Government will start from a point where there will be no defence other than the minimum wage and the basic standard law for workers and from that point that it will build.
That is not true.
That is a fact. That could be the legal situation and once it starts with that legal situation and time passes employers will start employing people under the new conditions: why would they not do so? Then when the Minister tries to bring in his law there will be a huge outcry from employers to the effect that he cannot do so because they are employing people under conditions that are inferior to his law. If the conditions are inferior to the law, perhaps that is the reason for the delay in the Government's approach to this matter.
There is a conflict between the people who sit on this side and those who sit on that side of the House as to the approach that should be taken. The free marketeers in Fine Gael would like to drop the whole thing but the Labour Party is very wedded to it. There is an ideological conflict between them, which is understandable because the two parties claimed prior to the election that they were totally different. Why would there not be ideological differences between them? It would be amazing if two parties which said their ideologies were different before the election suddenly found they had no ideological differences once they got into Cabinet and, if that were so, one of them would have had to have been telling us fibs prior to the election.
By holding off in bringing forward legislation, it is one up for the Minister. The baseline of where we are starting from is zero whereas if legislation was in place, the baseline would be that legislation. Therefore, I am concerned as to what the intentions are in regard to legislation in this respect.
I accept that in most small businesses there is very little paperwork, dealings with unions and so on but a particular feature of 80% to 90% of good small businesses that I know is that there is great cohesion between the worker and the management and they very rarely have recourse to any of the industrial machinery unless there is a major breakdown on one or other side and they often relate to personality issues. In long-established good small businesses, the reality is that the employers know that without committed workers getting a fair return there would be no business because it is much more of a team effort and it is much more based on personal relationships.
In larger and more impersonal businesses, there is a temptation to take a money view because of the sheer number of employees and the personal relationship element is not such a feature. Employees in such businesses can often themselves in a vulnerable situation. An employer employing 200, 300, 400 or 500 employers who can save so much a week, rather than considering the importance of the personal relationships between management and workers because such relationships are not immediately identifiable because they are immediately available, may avail of that opportunity to make a cash saving.
It is funny that it has been said that in the interim period nobody will move to take advantage of the situation. We were surprised that an appeal was not submitted on foot of the judgment. If an appeal had been submitted, everything would be stalled until the appeal was heard and we could then move forward and introduce a Bill before the law was struck down, but we are not in that situation. I was surprised by the naive view that no employers will take advantage of the position now that the wall has been knocked down. I find that strange. I will mention two cases where people tried to circumvent the law to save money on wages. Does the Minister remember the famous Irish Ferries dispute? It certainly was not within the spirit of what we would like to happen here but the question arose of whether it was legal. Aer Lingus also let staff go before hiring them again on less favourable terms. It is not believable that somebody working in a non-unionised operation on a casual basis will be able to argue past legal cases with a powerful employer to defend his or her position if the latter finds an apparently legal means of reducing terms of employment ahead of the proposed Bill. It is like telling somebody who is deeply unhappy about a decision to appeal it to the High Court on a point of law when that person does not know where to find the money to take on a court case. In the mundane world where ordinary people work, it is disingenuous to suggest it is sufficient to rely on verbal contracts.
We propose that the Minister should accept this Bill for now and, once he has had his proposals debated in Cabinet, he can bring forward a better system. The basic premise is to address the weakness in the system as it existed heretofore. Nobody is against change. We all recognise that parts of the system had to be adjusted to the new realities in which we must work.
We are hearing a narrative from powerful business interests that if only they could persuade ordinary workers to take less, our economic woes would be solved. I do not agree with the Cuban solution of being poor and happy while refusing to pursue economic wealth. However, I am also far from believing that the pursuit of wealth and notional increases to GNP creates a good standard of living in itself. I would argue that the Cuban model simply makes everyone poor and I believe in the creation of wealth but it must be fairly distributed. Those who measure the success of a country purely in GNP terms miss the point of why we emphasise economic growth and wealth creation. I am not concerned with how wealthy people may be but I am concerned with how poor they are. I do not begrudge somebody who owns a few million euro as long as it has not been earned at the disadvantage of those who are struggling to make ends meet. If somebody is making money by creating wealth in society, I have no problem with it but if he or she is helping to create an unequal society in which the poor are in the majority, that is the wrong vision. I do not agree with the narrative that as long as the people at the bottom cut their cloth to measure, all will be right with the world. Having worked in the area of job development, I see the creation of employment as a means of bringing improvements in people's lifestyles and giving them opportunities to work within their own communities. I did not object if those who created the jobs enjoyed a reasonable living as a result but the current narrative worries me.
I ask the Government to accept the need for this Bill. It is not unusual when the High Court strikes down legislation that we would deal with the specific point of law that was called into question, which is what the Bill does. The Minister can continue to pursue his agenda of long-term reform. I do not need to give him advice because he has been around this House for a long time but all of us who have had the privilege of serving as a Minister or Minister of State understand what it is like to ask when legislation will be ready. We take it at face value when we are told it will take several months and that we are 80% there after six months. However, the delay arises in perfecting the Bill. Every Government I dealt with in this House failed to deliver on the timeframes for their legislative promises. Having been in the system for a long time, I understand why this happens. It is easy enough to get the legislation to 80% of perfection but the final 20% will drive the Minister mad. It will be over and back and subject to negotiation.
The Government's proposals for industrial reform will be subject to endless negotiations between the Labour Party and Fine Gael and we will wait a long time before legislation comes before this House. The proposals will require detailed debate when we finally receive them and the Bill should not be guillotined. If the Seanad is still around when the Minister manages to publish a Bill, he can figure out for himself how long it will take before it can be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Perhaps we need a JLC for the Seanad.
I am aware I am straying from the subject of the debate but I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will indulge me.
The Deputy has 54 seconds. He will not be able to stray too far.
In the context of the Communications Regulation (Postal Service) Bill 2010, it was amazing to see how many technical amendments were made by the Government on Committee Stage and Report Stage. If we had a unicameral Parliament, I wonder how we would make all these amendments. This is why it is important that Bills go before both Houses to perfect the language used in them. Before the Government moves to abolish the Seanad, I suggest it should carry out a survey of all the amendments made by the second House to receive the Bills, whether that was the Seanad or the Dáil. Such a survey will indicate that a bicameral system is required and that the proposals to abolish the Seanad are purely populist and without foundation.
I am afraid we will have to wonder for a while longer because the Deputy's time has concluded and I have to put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011: Referral to Select Committee
I move:
That the Bill be referred to the Select Sub-Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation pursuant to Standing Order 82A (3)(a) and 6(a) of the orders of reference of that committee.
Question put and agreed to.