Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

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, that it 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, 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.

See this speech in context