John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

I propose to share time with Deputy McConalogue. I welcome the Bill, which gives us the opportunity to make a contribution on this matter. What we expected to be included in the Bill is very different from what is before us. We all accept there is a need for a Bill to deal with the High Court ruling last year when the JLC system was found to be unconstitutional. The Bill contains serious deficiencies, which will undermine JLCs and EROs, leaving workers vulnerable and with little protection.

Fianna Fáil, under Seán Lemass, introduced the JLC system in 1946. JLCs are independent bodies that determine minimum rates of pay and conditions of work for workers in certain sectors. Each JLC includes a representative of workers or employees in the sector concerned. It was far-reaching legislation at the time. The pay and conditions agreed by representatives on the JLCs were given force of law in EROs and employers are liable to be prosecuted in civil courts for breaches of an ERO. This provision was found to be unconstitutional. The Duffy Walsh report is a fine document and contains 19 recommendations. The report estimates that between 150,000 and 205,000 workers are covered by JLCs in 2009, amounting to 15% of private sector employees. These are mainly in the catering and hotel industry, which is variable employment with a seven-day working week. Hotels and pubs are open seven days a week and their catering operations must sometimes operate on a 24 hour, seven-day basis. There was a strong need for implementation of rights and regulations for people working in this sector.

Many Members of the Oireachtas and business people have expressed the view that wages in this sector are too high, rates are inflexible and that it is difficult to get people to work on Saturdays, Sundays or after hours unless they are paid way above the norm. Listening to these opinions, one would think that reducing the wages of the lower paid would create substantial amounts of new employment. This is not the case. Pay levels of lower paid workers did not have much to do with the problems business people up and down the country are now facing. The lack of consumer spending is one of the major issues. People are not spending as they did during the Celtic tiger era. Government increases in VAT, septic tank charges, household charges, rising oil prices, both due to VAT and increases imposed by oil companies, have all affected consumer spending.

Deputy Sherlock, who is Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, might take an interest in the recent substantial increases in the oil sector. There has been a dramatic increase in oil prices in the past year and I do not believe it is justified. I worked in the oil business for 14 or 15 years and I have a fair idea how it operates. When crude oil prices go up prices are increased immediately by the companies but when they go down on the world market it takes a long time for the decrease to filter through to the petrol and diesel pumps. Oil prices are causing a major problem for people at present. I am sure we will see less consumer spending this year as a result of these factors.

Labour costs in Ireland are not as high as many people claim. EU data from, I think, 2008 pointed out that Irish labour costs were 6% below the EU average. They have certainly reduced since then because of the changes that have come about. The Sunday premium appears to have gone, although the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation might dispute this. We have heard contributors to this debate claim that payments to Sunday workers are destroying the economy. That is not the case. The hotel sector, of its own accord, changed the employment regulation order, ERO, governing the sector to reduce the standard work premium from time and a half to time and a third. This came about, not because of legislation but following dialogue among the interested parties. It was a good change. Hotels were under pressure, workers recognised the situation and there was a major change in Sunday payment rates. The majority of Sunday work is paid at time and a third. That was a welcome change.

Many people are now rostered for seven days and work for a flat rate on Sundays, Saturdays and every other day. This change also came about following dialogue and discussion. The criticism that Sunday or Saturday night pay levels were devastating employment in certain sectors is not valid, and has not been for some years. These major changes should be recognised.

When this debate took place in Britain in the early 1990s the same suggestions were made, largely by employers' groups. The Sunday premium was abolished in Britain in 1993. When I consulted data on this recently, I discovered that experts in the field of employment are agreed that the change created very few, if any, jobs.

I am surprised the Labour Party has accepted the dismantling of the Sunday premium, given that the people who benefit from it are at the bottom of the pay levels and it was not a big payment in any event. The Labour Party did not hold the line on this issue. I also note from press releases that the trade union movement has given a guarded welcome to the Minister's proposed changes. This is a big change from the trade unions' initial criticism of the Minister when he first mooted the proposal. Many Members on the Government side of the House were critical when the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation floated a possible change when he came into Government. The Taoiseach said he was citing a personal agenda and the change would not happen. It has happened, the rights of the lower paid are undermined and they will find things very difficult.

If an employer decides not to honour an agreement, how will the agreement be implemented? I would like the Minister of State to spell out this in his reply. The National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, will have its hands tied behind its back. Some people were not very happy with NERA in the past. Members on all sides of the House have been critical of the NERA and of the high-handed way it operated. It appears it will now have very little involvement in employment rights, because of the changes being brought about by the Minister.

I am disappointed the Minister did not accept more of the 19 recommendations of the report by Kevin Duffy and Frank Walsh. The Duffy Walsh report was excellent and would have shown the way forward for payments to the less well off for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the Minister has decided to ignore almost 80% of the report. I am concerned at the level of power he has taken to himself. This aspect of the Bill must be teased out on Committee Stage. The Minister will have too much power in this area and I would be concerned about decisions he might take in the future.

See this speech in context