Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

It is important to remind our colleagues on the Independent benches of three points. The first point is that not all employers are evil, as they continually infer and suggest. All those working in the private sector are employed by people whose objective is make a profit, but in so doing they create the revenue and ability for others to earn a wage, thus enabling them to look after their families and homes. If it were not for the profit motive and the willingness of people to set up businesses, attract inward investment and better themselves, the plight of the country, while bad at the moment, would be so much worse.

The second point, which it is important to emphasise, is that this Government does not see competitiveness or any other such measures as goals in themselves. The reason they are pursued is for the specific objective of getting people back to work.

The proof is that in recent years, as Irish workers have regained their competitiveness, which had been lost over a period, Ireland's trade surplus has grown. This has brought more investment and tax revenue into our country, creating more jobs. Without the willingness of people to work, we would be lost and unable to do that.

The third point worth emphasising is the continued rhetoric from Members that if we were not bailing out the banks, we would not have this problem. While the idea is attractive, it is incorrect. The size of the budget deficit for this year between what we take in taxation and what we spend, excluding any of the costs of supporting our banking system, remains at €13 billion. Until the gap is bridged, it will be impossible for the State to regain our full economic sovereignty and decide, independently, what we want to do with the fruits of taxpayers' money and efforts. That goal is vital for the Government to achieve.

It is important to acknowledge the context of this legislation. Previous speakers have made reference to the High Court decision that led to the striking down of the framework in place before this Bill was introduced. In reading this Bill, it is important to quote from the judgment to emphasise the need for this legislation. This legislation is not retaining what existed in the past but refounding and recreating it. Paragraph 1 of the judgment states that what was there beforehand was "unreasonable and constitutes an unlawful and disproportionate interference with the property rights of the first and second named plaintiffs as guaranteed by the Constitution". Paragraph 34 of the ruling says that "those rates and conditions must be determined and based upon principles and policies laid down by the Oireachtas and not as determined by a delegated body acting in the absence of stated principles and policies". It states that the framework that had been in place beforehand had been acting in the absence of clear policies and principles from the State. The judgment states: "this Court is satisfied that the plaintiffs have established that such pay rates and conditions of employment have in effect been determined in an arbitrary and unfair manner."

For structures that were so vital or played such a role in protecting the conditions and workrates of employees who could be in a vulnerable position and to have the court make such a harsh ruling on the viability of those structures is a matter the Government must act upon. The choice the Government had was not to retain what had been in place before or to recreate it in a more sustainable and robust fashion. The reason the choice was made is, contrary to what some may claim, because we are very clear on the need to do all we can to create more jobs in our economy but this cannot be at the expense of recognising and understanding that the rights of people in jobs need to be protected. That is why the system is being refounded.

Within the Bill, three sections in particular relate to the objectives of the Government in looking to refound the system. Section 10 makes clear that guidance will be required from the Labour Court to review and recreate JLCs in future. This is an important point in the context of what the judgment states about the lack of guidance in the past. Section 11 refers to the need for JLCs and EROs to be more cognisant and aware of the direction set by the Minister and the Department and the need for an awareness of the principles and priorities of the particular industry or sector at any given point. The Bill lays out the rights of the employees, which is critical, but also acknowledges that cognisance must be taken of the viability of the company and industry within which the JLC and ERO is operating.

Section 13, which other speakers have commented on, is also important. It concerns the derogation procedures for dealing with the decisions of JLCs being suspended. This section examines the procedure where the majority of workers are willing to support this course of action and where the majority of workers are not willing to support it. It lays out the framework and procedure within which this will happen and how it can be resolved in an orderly fashion. All of this is driven by the fact that the Government recognises that, while it is vital to create new jobs, we need to ensure that the rights of employees, particularly those within industries specified in the JLCs names and parameters, are recognised and looked after.

I conclude by emphasising two of the points made in respect of the Government's record on the rights of employees and people working in industries in which they could be vulnerable. This is the Government that increased the level of the minimum wage, which the previous Government cut. Deputy Boyd Barrett praised other Governments across Europe for doing this but this step was taken by our Government and it is one people said we could not or would not take. It was taken as part of the jobs initiative.

The second point concerns the steps identified by the Minister in reducing the number of JLCs, which is overdue. I am glad to see it happen. A previous speaker identified the earlier item of legislation that set up this measure. This reflected the fact that the economy in the 1940s was in a different place to where it is now. I am certain we will ensure we have the right number of JLCs in the future and that they cover the right geographic areas in order to ensure that employees and employers are not put at a disadvantage on the basis of where they live. We must also ensure they cover areas relevant to the development of economy. These are all matters that can ensure the structure created by this Bill plays an important role in ensuring the rights of employees are looked after while also recognising that employers have rights. Having both sectors work closely together offers the only hope for our economy and society to continue to recover.

See this speech in context