Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this legislation. It is very timely. Last July, when the JLC system for protecting low paid workers was struck down in the courts, many on the Opposition benches shouted loudly that the Government, and particularly the Labour Party, would use the court decision as a convenient fig leaf to avoid fulfilling our obligations to lower paid workers. The appearance and content of the Bill clearly give a lie to those claims.

The High Court case brought successfully by John Grace Fried Chicken will not have the devastating effect on workers' rights that was initially feared. Why is that so?

The reason is that the Government has responded quickly and effectively to the vacuum created as a consequence of the court judgment. Fast food may be bad for our health and clog up our arteries but it should not be allowed to clog up the essential rights of lower paid workers or diminish their conditions and right to fair pay. To some extent, it could be argued that the case may have been helpful because unions, employers, employees and Members of the Oireachtas all knew the system of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements needed reform. There were, however, widely differing and distinctive views on how to best achieve this.

Some of the agendas peddled in recent months were openly hostile to working people and represented a naked desire to drive down wages to the lowest possible level and trample on hard won rights at work as well as decent, albeit modest, pay. The court decision resulting in the scrapping of the system proved an unexpected boon in some ways in that instead of trying to adjust existing schemes and generate make-do, piecemeal agreements, we were able to start from a blank canvas to create a system that would protect workers and avoid tying employers into a bureaucratic nightmare such as those we have all encountered.

IBEC and others have spoken out against the Bill, with the former describing it as "misguided and unnecessary". When I hear the shrill cries and screams from some of those who peddle the view that we live in an economy rather than a society I sleep much easier at night in the knowledge that we must still be doing a good job to protect vulnerable workers who are governed by the legislation.

Under the Bill, the number of joint labour committees will be reduced to six, making them easier to understand and implement. Workers will have a clearer understanding of the system, while the maintenance and tracking of agreements will be less onerous for employees. Under the provisions, all current JLC workers will be protected in the new structure as recommended by the Duffy Walsh report published last year. This is a positive development.

The Bill makes legislative provision for companies to derogate from the terms of EROs and REAs in cases of financial difficulty through the insertion of an inability to pay clause. Critically, however, the protections afforded to workers in respect of this clause are highly robust and I am pleased the Labour Court will be closely involved in this process. This provision offers sufficient protection. The legislation to permit the joint labour committees to set three rates, a basic rate and two supplementary minimum rates, to reflect varying levels of service and experience will address many of the concerns raised in this debate. It will also substantially reduce the number of different rates applying across the EROs, while acknowledging that the freedom of JLCs to establish two higher rates for experienced employees is also very important. Measures such as the requirement that unions and employers develop a protocol or statutory code of practice on overtime and the obligation for comprehensive and ongoing reviews of the scope of each individual remaining JLC makes a great deal of sense in the fast changing environment and responds to some of the points made in the Feeney judgment.

The continued recognition that Sunday is not just another working day is very welcome. The rights of workers in respect of Sunday working will be firmly protected by a new code of practice on Sunday working to be devised by the Labour Relations Commission. This will be similar to the existing 1998 code of practice on Sunday working in the retail trade. We need to learn some lessons from how the latter code was implemented or, in some cases, not implemented.

Labour Court involvement in adjudication procedures for new ERO proposals is also a very positive step. In light of everything that has taken place previously, especially in the months since the Feeney judgment, it is clear we have not thrown out the baby with the bath water. While the judgment essentially struck out the old system of protections that was in place for a long number of years, we have ensured that the best principles, the philosophy of equity and fairness and the need to protect the often modest wages and essential rights of workers in certain very fluid sectors of the economy underpins this legislation.

The vultures may well be circling to pick holes in the Bill. I venture that they probably have a metaphorical engine running outside with a view to whisking the legislation over to the courts to have it challenged at the earliest opportunity. I am confident, however, in light of the work done on the legislation in recent months, that the proposals are as robust and vigorous as they can be in terms of withstanding potential challenges.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, departmental officials and many others who were engaged in this process, in which I have also been centrally involved as I sought to achieve a positive outcome. We have invested considerable work in the Bill, as the Minister of State will be aware, and I look forward to its enactment at the earliest possible date. The positive engagement with the Minister in recent months has been an example of coalition government working at its best to resolve obvious philosophical and practical differences which emerged at an early stage of the process.

It is not in anyone's interests to see the wages of workers driven down with official legislative encouragement. It would do nothing for the struggling high streets of all the towns and villages Deputies represent. It would damage social solidarity and vital, basic, everyday economic activity. I am pleased to support the legislation and look forward to its enactment.

See this speech in context