Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

First, I thank Deputy Tóibín for having this debate.

I want to make clear the Government will put in place a robust system that will protect workers but also have the flexibility to allow the maximum creation and protection of employment. That is clearly what was sought by the Duffy-Walsh report. It flagged the need to reform radically this system. That is a pillar of the programme for Government.

The approach of Government is not a race to the bottom. Indeed, we have shown already by restoring the national minimum wage that such is not the agenda of Government.

It is important to recognise what the court has done to this structure that was in place. While I recognise and accept the good intentions of Sinn Féin in bringing forward this Bill, this is, in effect, a three year old Fianna Fáil Bill, which that party allowed languish, which has been found by the courts not to fill the gap that has been opened. While it is important to give a signal in this House that our job is about protecting workers and making sure the vulnerable are not exploited, there is no point in pretending that legislation which has been found to be inadequate could be passed in this House as a final response. I have indicated my intention to bring forward legislation to address this matter. My officials, some of whom are in the Chamber, are working with the Attorney General with absolute priority to produce the Bill. We expect it to be ready within a matter of weeks whereupon we will have a proper debate on all the issues that have been raised.

Several Members referred to the importance of protecting the special status of Sunday. That is fully recognised in general legislation. By making a provision that Sunday working will be governed by general legislation and not by specific JLC orders is not to turn our back on the importance of Sunday but to recognise that the options which have been made available in other sectors are important. They mean that an employer can, for example, in lieu of a Sunday premium paid only to those employees working on Sunday, offer a general higher rate of pay for all workers. Many people, both employers and workers, consider that fair. Moreover, there are many people for whom Sunday working is not an inconvenience. Similarly, it can be argued that people who work during the week but not on Sundays should be entitled to a reasonable recognition for the effort they put in five days per week. Employers and workers should have the right to decide for themselves which option is better, and that is provided for in general legislation. We are offering a flexibility which will protect Sunday working while affording choice as to how it should be recognised. If, for instance, a worker has an obligation to be available for work on Sunday but is not necessarily called to do so, he or she might still be eligible for a premium on the basis of that availability. We should not pretend there is only one route in terms of protecting Sunday working. Offering the choices that are available in general legislation is a sensible approach which allows for a choice as to the approach best suited to a particular workplace.

The Duffy Walsh report clearly recognises that the 1946 legislation cannot adequately address all the issues that arise in 2011. In the heat of debate people may seek to defend every element of the current system, even those aspects which the passage of time has rendered as obstacles to progress rather than protection. The purpose of the Bill we are introducing is to ensure we have legislation that protects workers in a modern context and will stand up robustly to any legal challenge. We must have a flexible system so that when representatives of workers and employers sit down in a JLC to discuss the form of the order that should apply, and when the Labour Court plays a role in that process, that they are looking at modern working conditions rather than being guided by legislation that was designed in another era.

That is what we are seeking to do and I hope there will be a degree of consensus across the House as to how to achieve it, although that may not be possible. Members can be assured that I am determined to reinstate a system that is modern, protects people robustly, is not vulnerable to employers rushing to the courts to overturn agreed provisions and does not apply criminal sanctions to people without a robust underpinning which is rooted in laws enacted by this House. With the passage of time there may have been a tendency to overlook this fundamental principle - that criminal sanctions were imposed which were not based on an adequate legal footing, as pointed out by the High Court. When one sees it pointed out, it is difficult to argue with it. One cannot impose criminal sanctions on the basis of something that is discussed behind closed doors without robust underpinning principles. It was evidently the case that the former system was not adequate.

I assure Deputies that we are not back-pedalling, freewheeling or anything else. This issue went to Government on 21 July and we are well advanced in the legislative process. The Attorney General and my officials have given a great deal of time to this and it is a priority for my Department. We hope shortly to bring to the House a Bill on which we can have a proper debate.

See this speech in context