John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

I support the amendment proposed by the Minister, Deputy Bruton. I echo much of what the previous speaker said. I wish to deal with the reality on the ground. I hold a candle not for any vested interests but for people whom I know and went to school and college with, many of whom now live in different corners of the world owing to our economic situation and others who live in Kilkenny, Carlow and other parts of the country who want jobs but cannot get a job.

The Minister set out in his contribution to the House the Government's position on the fundamental difficulty faced by our society. We are facing not alone an economic problem but a societal problem. A whole generation of young people is unemployed. Many have emigrated. We must, as a Government, do everything to ensure we create jobs for those people into the future.

As complications attached to any field of employment rise, the fluidity of that market and the willingness and capability to create employment within it falls. For example, there are currently 20 different rates of pay in the hotel sector. This is not an isolated case. Across the 21 main employment regulation orders, EROs, and registered employment agreements, REAs, there are 314 different wage rates which increase complexity relating to pay arrangements and decrease employment by reducing clarity and stagnating the areas which they cover.

Reform such as that proposed by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is not easy. With misrepresentation, the hallmark of some of the comments I have heard from the Opposition tonight, this becomes even harder. We need to be clear. This is not an assault on the most vulnerable workers. Fine Gael and the Labour Party committed themselves, prior and subsequent to the election, to restoring the national minimum wage to its previous level prior to the cut introduced by the former Government. This is not an attempt to abolish Sunday rates, as suggested by many. This reform is about bringing simplification and clarity to our wage mechanisms. It is about reducing inequity not creating it. One of the myths that persisted in this debate, and was echoed throughout the media, is that the Government intends to reduce Sunday pay rates. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sunday pay rates are safeguarded by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which requires that Sunday working be compensated either by an increased rate of pay, a premium payment on Sunday or time off in lieu of the Sunday worked. Ultimately, this means that workers in the sectors affected by JLCs would have the same conditions for Sunday working as do employees across the remainder of the economy.

Since the introduction of JLCs in the 1940s our labour laws have changed dramatically. Protection has been introduced. The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 was enacted and a minimum wage was introduced, which minimum wage was recently restored to its prior level. It is disingenuous and it is a distraction from valid points in this debate to suggest that this is anything other than ironing out inequity in our system, one which divides 25% of private sector workers from the remaining 75%.

The proposed legislation seeks to safeguard jobs and to remove barriers for people willing to hire in these sectors. I do not speak for anyone on any rich list anywhere. Many small businesses in my constituency and on high streets eager to take on employees find themselves unable to do so because of an outdated JLC system. There has been a 60% loss in construction employment and a 15% loss in retail employment. If one combines this with the knowledge that there are 314 different rates of pay across the 21 sectors mentioned, one would agree this is a barrier that should be removed to prevent further loss of jobs and aid potential gains. Sectors governed by JLCs are among the hardest hit in terms of employment reduction in our economy. Wages in these sectors have remained on an artificial plateau relative to other private sector wages. This has prevented employment creation. For this reason, I support the Minister's amendment.

See this speech in context