Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)

Go raibh míle maith agat a Cathaoirligh. Ní mór dúinn cuimhnigh sa chéad dul síos ar an bhfáth gur chruthaigh an Rialtas na JLCs sna daichidí. Chruthaigh siad iad chun tuarastal agus coinníollacha mhuintir an íseal pá a chosaint. Chruthaigh siad iad chun oibrí na hÉireann a chosaint ó dhúshaothrú ó fhostóirí neamh-scrupallach. Is léir ón nuacht is déanaí ó thaobh Vita Cortex agus eile go bhfuil borradh ar an méid fostóirí neamh-scrupallach agus tá brú uafásach ag teacht ar oibrí. Sin an fáth gur cóir dúinn gach cosaint a chur i bhfeidhm comh luath is is féidir.

Last July, Sinn Féin brought its own legislation on joint labour committees, JLCs, to the Houses. However, our Bill has been stalled by the Government on Committee Stage. My party, in partnership with the trade union movement, has campaigned for the past six months for watertight legislation on this issue. While the Bill has many positive attributes, Sinn Féin cannot support the negation of the Sunday premium as it will cut the wages of the working poor. The matter is as simple as that.

It should be remembered in all of this that the joint labour committee system was developed to safeguard the rights and entitlements of low paid workers. The committees were established to prevent workers being exploited and hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty. The recent legal challenge and subsequent court ruling necessitated legislative change and presented the Government with an opportunity to further enshrine in legislation the rights and safeguards of low paid workers. The lack of urgency demonstrated by the Government on this matter caused concern to many of those involved in this area. The failure of the Minister to introduce legislation promptly was the reason Sinn Féin, in consultation with the trade union movement, drafted and submitted a Bill for the consideration of the Oireachtas. Responding to our legislation, the Government stated it would bring forward a Bill before the end of the term but produced it at the eleventh hour in late December.

On publishing the Bill the Minister stated: "I have been determined to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable workers and providing reforms that would make systems more competitive and more flexible so to allow for the creation of jobs in these sectors." This is not a case of trading workers' rights against job creation. The Government's own report, the Duffy Walsh review, found no evidence of a connection between the protections and pay rates of joint labour committees and employment levels. It found that "lowering the basic JLC rates to the level of the minimum wage rate is unlikely to have a substantial effect on employment."

There is no doubt that if the wages of certain workers were pushed down, some employers would be able to employ more people. It is also the case that the severe strain many businesses are under has caused many of them to grab on to the potential of lower wages as a drowning person would grab a life raft. However, there is no evidence to substantiate the view that JLCs undermine employment in general.

There is, not surprisingly, a lobby by some employers to drive down wages to increase profits. This lobby appears to have found a willing partner in the Government because many of the changes in the Bill are not about creating jobs, enhancing competitiveness or safeguarding the rights of workers but are largely ideologically driven. It should be remembered that the Minister and his senior officials and personally appointed advisers receive multiples of the wages awarded to JLC workers. As always, there has not been any drive to reduce their wages. Perhaps the Minister and officials believe they can justify receiving a salary ten times higher than the wages of the JLC workers who work for them.

It is incorrect to argue that our competitiveness and unemployment levels are the result of joint labour committees or the cost of low paid workers. A myriad of other costs, including energy, rent, rates and credit, could be tackled by the Government but it has failed to do so. For example, it has not invested in transport and broadband infrastructure, two areas in which investment would significantly enhance competitiveness. They are being ignored because of vested interests with strong voices. Unfortunately, the working poor do not have well financed lobbyists to plead their case. Workers did not bring the State to the brink of bankruptcy or call on the Government to bail out hard pressed bankers, bondholders and developers. The registered employment agreements, REAs, in construction did not decimate the building industry and JLC workers in retail did not crash that sector.

Let us consider the responses and achievements of the Government thus far. In the past year, its economic policies have delivered increased unemployment, emigration and business closures and brought about a return to recession. The Minister contends he is seeking to enhance competitiveness and employment, yet the impact of the Government's actions on the economy, business and citizens is the polar opposite. He speaks of competitiveness but fails to implement obvious opportunities to enhance competitiveness.

The Government has tried to hide behind the troika on the issue of who is responsible for competitiveness problems. The troika did not demand changes to the joint labour committees. The Government has built a public relations wall over the last year, stating the troika is forcing various negative policies on it leaving it with no choice but to comply. My party has met representatives of the troika on two occasions and is aware that this is not the case. Water and household charges are not set in stone with the troika but reflect the ideological preferences of the Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition. The same is true of the Government's decision to repay unguaranteed unsecured bondholders in full and its plan to sell off €5 billion worth of State assets. The troika knows the world in 2012 is a different place from the world in 2010 when the document was drawn up. While it seeks a deficit reduction, it is flexible on how this objective is achieved. The policies being pursued reflect the priorities of the Government and its lack of negotiating skills.

Let us contrast the Government's approach to legislating on joint labour committees with its agreement with the troika to introduce civil fines for abuse of competition rules. Its decision to drop the latter suggests the Government is more at home with the large multiples which sometimes abuse dominant market position and the cosy cartels such as those in the concrete industry than with those who fall under the joint labour committees.

The biggest issues facing the competitiveness of our retail and small business sector are levels of demand and upward only rents. The retail sector is suffering badly and while I do not wish to be a harbinger of doom, the closure of some retail and small manufacturing businesses in recent weeks will be followed in the month ahead by many more closures. Many of the businesses which did their utmost to get through to the new year must now face the reality. The retail sector has shed 50,000 jobs in the past three years and a further 40,000 jobs are at risk. Having promised to end upward only rents to address the excessive Celtic tiger rents which are crippling competitiveness, the Government, rather than finding a resolution to the problem, has hidden behind the advice of the Attorney General. To add insult to injury, the budget included additional measures to subsidise property speculation. The Government did not seek to drive down property costs and rents. Its priority was not employers and workers but landlords and speculators. It is transforming our economy and society into a debt repayment agency and all other concerns - jobs, enterprise or workers - are deemed secondary.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell and other Fine Gael Deputies are of the view that joint labour committees are not required as a national minimum wage is in place. A minimum wage should not be the objective but should function as a floor under which no one is forced to work. If some of those on the benches opposite were to try to manage on the minimum wage, it would focus their attention. The knock-on impact of the drive to reduce wages for the low paid will be to reduce demand in the domestic market. Given that those on low wages tend to spend all of their earnings, reducing their wage has a disproportionately large impact on the economy and demand.

Turning to the detail of the Bill, I ask the Minister to provide clarity on a number of issues and, where necessary, consider directing his Department to further amending it on Committee Stage. I share the previous speaker's concerns about the new powers the legislation affords the Minister in the area of employment regulation orders. I ask him to outline how Ministers may effect change in this regard in future.

With regard to section 5, which substitutes section 27(2) of the 1946 Act, I hope the Minister is in a position to clarify that the test of the term "substantively representative" of the workforce will be that it ensures and enhances trade union recognition in sectors that have been traditionally filled with the most vulnerable employees, many of whom work in isolation without representation.

In continuing to balance the rights of workers with the rights of employers, section 5 adds principles and policies to which the Labour Court must have regard in considering whether to register an agreement. The Labour Court must explicitly have regard to the potential impact on employment levels and yet only have regard to the desirability of a fair and sustainable wage. The word "desirability" is too weak. Less consideration is given to the need for a fair wage. An employer can now make the case that he or she might employ more people if wage rates are kept low or might make workers redundant if a fair wage is struck. The Labour Court can only consider the desirability of a fair wage. It appears to me and to others that this tilts rights away from vulnerable workers.

Why does the legislation direct the Labour Court to have regard not only to the general levels of wages in comparable sectors but also adds, "including, where enterprises in the sector in question are in competition with enterprises outside the State, the general level of wages in such comparable sectors in other relevant jurisdictions"? These additions seem driven by the fallacy that workers covered by EROs and REAs are overpaid compared to those in other jurisdictions. The addition of other jurisdictions is a charter to drive down wages here. Let us be clear. We do not want to be a State which prides itself on driving down wages.

The EU labour cost survey in 2008 showed that labour costs in retail, hotels and restaurants were below the EU average and that the operating costs to labour costs ratio was on a par with the EU average. By including a specific clause in the legislation, the Government may allow for a reduction in wages. If the worry is the ability to compete with businesses in the North, I would welcome the Government working with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to develop a truly national approach to tackling low pay and creating all-Ireland harmonisation rather than taking a regional approach in the Twenty-six Counties. If one is looking for a solution to competitiveness on the island of Ireland, that is the only way it will be resolved in the long run.

Section 9 provides for a temporary exemption from the Act. Will the Minister assure us that businesses seeking an exemption must make a full disclosure of their financial standing to the Labour Court, including remuneration of directors and managers and payments to companies associated with directors? This is a can of worms in which paper walls and company walls can hide information and rights from workers in sister companies.

Section 11 allows for a periodic review of the JLCs and directs that the Labour Court must have regard to the impact of EROs on the employment levels, especially entry level. Consistent with the approach throughout the legislation, this insertion places the ideology that fair wages cost employment on a statutory basis and is open to exploitation. The subtext is that one can have fair wages or decent employment levels but not both. We believe one can have decent employment levels and fair wages.

How can the Labour Court quantify the effect a fair wage will have on employment levels? Will this be done using mathematical and economic models or will it be left to the assumption current at any given time? The disparity between the rights of workers and employers is further highlighted in section 12 which directs that the JLC must have regard to the legitimate financial and commercial interests of the employers but only have regard to the desirability of agreeing a fair wage. As I said, this leads to a hierarchy of priorities and favours one citizen's rights over those of another. It gives an enhanced legal standing to the profits of the business over the need for a fair wage.

These provisions are repeated in the direction to the Labour Court. I do not know if the Labour Party members opposite are, like the Minister for Education and Skills, out of practice or have completely given up the ghost on low paid workers. However, writing into law that the concerns of the employer is more important than the worker is a disgrace and I hope this Bill will be amended in committee.

In section 12, the Minister again draws on comparators in other states in regard to wage rates here. It would appear that the Government is involved in a race to the bottom in this regard. I question the Labour Party on section 12, which amends section 42 of the original Act to remove the rights to public holidays, Sunday working, payments in lieu of notice and redundancy from JLC agreements. Workers will now rely on the minimum legislative safeguards in regard to public holidays, payments in lieu of notice and redundancy. Everyone in this Chamber is well aware of how businesses have circumvented their responsibilities. All one has to do is look at companies such as Vita Cortex.

Given the avalanche of retail and manufacturing businesses which are on the edge of collapse, the Government must do all in its power to strengthen workers' rights. However, there is no set rate for Sunday working in legislation. The removal of this from the responsibility of the JLC process will reduce the premium low paid workers can expect. We are not talking about staff who can choose to work on Sundays but about low paid workers, many of whom have no choice but to work on Sundays. We are talking about people who have difficulty feeding their families, paying their bills, paying their mortgages, going to doctors, etc. We are talking about people who will take a major wage hit if this happens. It will fall to the most vulnerable workers to try to negotiate terms around these issues. Does anyone on the benches opposite believe this will result in increased wages or that wages will remain as they are? The Government should amend this legislation to ensure that JLC workers receive premium rates for working Sundays. The constitutional challenge to the JLC framework could and should provide an opportunity to enhance the rights and rates of pay for low paid workers but instead these have been eroded.

Aspects of this legislation appear to be ideologically driven and the Labour Party has acquiesced to that ideology. Do Labour Party members believe this legislation is a progressive step to further enhance the rights of low paid workers? If the Government is serious about tackling competitiveness and promoting jobs, it should bring forward complementary legislation in regard to the major costs small businesses face and increase investment in education and infrastructure.

John Spicers Bakery has operated in my home town since the 1830s. It is an iconic brand in County Meath and I am sure the Minister is aware of it. That business has shed 27 staff in the past three days. I believe there are 15 staff left and that they are hanging on by a thread. There are a number of organisations under the remit of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, such as the county enterprise boards, Enterprise Ireland, etc., which will give advice to new businesses to get them up and running.

John Spicers Bakery is an old business which has been in operation for more than 150 years. I call on the Department to visit the bakery and into other businesses in a similar situation. There is no point going in after the business has closed. When a business is suffering extreme difficulty, there should be a facility whereby the Department, through one of its functionaries, will go into the business, help it to analyse its business plan, work out whether the business is feasible, analyse the costs and see whether the Government can effect changes to reduce those costs. If the business is viable and it is struggling for a short period of time, employment grants should be given to ensure employment levels are retained. This happens in Germany and should also happen here. Will the Department go into John Spicers Bakery and other businesses like it?

If the Government really means what it says about competitiveness, I urge it to look at all the issues we have brought forward in this and past contributions. The Government should amend this legislation to ensure that a balance is struck between employers and employees, rather giving priority to employers in this Bill.

See this speech in context