Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)

Deputy White mentioned the review process as being something very positive in the legislation. I would hope that would be the case. However, we know there is a review of community employment schemes taking place at present that is causing a great deal of stress and anxiety to people on another level. Many of them do not have an opportunity to buy into it directly so I hope their experience of the review process will be positive.

I acknowledge the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the work it has done on this legislation. Looking through it, starting at the end, I was struck by some of the reactions to this Bill. IBEC claims the Bill is misguided and unnecessary. While it welcomes the abolition of Sunday premiums as an improvement over the last regime, it argues "the entire joint labour committee, JLC, system should have been consigned to history." It also argues employees are already protected by over 40 items of employment legislation and that the Government's proposals are arbitrary and unnecessary.

SIPTU is disappointed the premium for working on Sundays has not been included in the proposed changes to the JLC wage-setting mechanism. However, its vice president notes low-paid workers covered by the Bill's provisions will be able to achieve a Sunday premium through a code of practice to be developed by the JLCs.

Mandate's general secretary acknowledges the progress embodied in the draft but that much work is required to turn it into legislation the trade union movement can fully support, particularly with regard to Sunday premiums and the inability-to-pay clause introduced for employers. Mandate is, however, pleased a replacement system will be put in place for low-paid workers.

The Irish Hotels Federation is disappointed with the Government's intention to reintroduce the JLC system. It argues it is an outdated and regressive employment framework which is neither appropriate nor fit for purpose in a modern competitive economy. Instead, it says the Government should have seen fit to abolish JLCs which place unfair and inequitable wages costs on tourism businesses already facing severe costs pressures. It also sees it as an impediment to job creation.

The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, believes the legislation is unnecessary, will negatively impact on cost competitiveness in certain sectors and will ultimately push struggling companies over the edge. It has commented that "the reintroduction of these outdated arrangements will heap further pressure on businesses that are just about staying afloat. Companies ... will be prevented from competing in a cost effective manner, stopping companies from trading successfully."

Chambers Ireland welcomes the reduction of JLCs from 13 to six and the eradication of Sunday premiums while protecting workers' entitlements under section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act. It feels it is a step towards more reasonable wage costs for businesses, the majority of which are domestic economy focused.

UNITE has stated the Bill "is seeking to dismantle the very structures built up to protect those who are on the lowest rates of pay" and "is a manifesto for change that could have been drawn up as a wish list for business groups and those seeking to take more profit out of the pockets of working people".

Where is the truth in all these diverging views? On 24 May 2011, the Government published the report of the independent review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreement wage-setting mechanisms. It found the existing JLC and registered employment agreements, REA, systems require radical overhaul so as to make them fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. For whom are they meant to be fairer?

This Bill is part of a commitment made in the programme for national recovery to provide more comprehensive measures to strengthen the legal framework for employment regulation orders, EROs, and REAs. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, claims the Government's controversial reforms of wage-setting mechanisms are fair and will protect vulnerable workers while allowing for the creation of employment. He also claims the measures will radically overhaul the joint labour committee and registered employment agreement systems so as to make them fairer, more competitive and more flexible so as to increase job creation. These changes, he believes, will also reinstate a robust system of protection for workers in sectors covered by such arrangements and similar changes in Britain have led to employment growth.

Under the Government action plan, the number of JLCs will be reduced from 13 to six. They will in future have the power to set only a basic adult rate and the discretion to set two higher increments to reflect longer periods of service. Previously such committees set more than 300 different wage rates.

JLCs will no longer set Sunday premium rates but the position of Sunday working will, however, still be recognised, mainly through options set out in the Organisation of Working Time Act, including the provision of time off in lieu. A new statutory code of practice on Sunday working will be drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission which will provide guidance for workers and employers.

Under the reforms, companies will be able to derogate from EROs in cases of financial difficulty, which I believe may cause problems. In setting rates, JLCs will in future have to take into account factors such as unemployment rates, competitiveness and wage trends here and in our major trading partners. That sets off alarm bells as to how workers will be protected.

While I would like to believe workers will be protected by this legislation, the reality may be different. I was fortunate in my job as a teacher that it was a collaborative work environment; the Department of Education and Skills and the school's board of management were not the worst of employers. This was mainly because it was not a profit-driven enterprise.

That is not true, however, in many other worker-employer relationships in which workers are poorly treated and standards abandoned. Those in lower income groups, many of which already have many pressures through extra charges and costs, are particularly affected by poor working conditions. The less well-off pay disproportionately for the costs of the mistakes of others during the boom. While the poor get poorer, those others continue with their high lifestyles. We continue to pay the banks' bondholders, that anonymous group of speculators and gamblers by taking from vulnerable people. More burdens are placed on the less well-off. The new poor are middle-class 30 to 39 year olds who bought into high mortgages but now face negative equity. Some of them are still working; others have lost their jobs. Where is the protection for them?

Yesterday, the issue of forced migrant workers was a Topical Issue matter while I attended a briefing in the Leinster House AV room before Christmas on migrant workers who had been trafficked to Ireland. Their stories were horrific. It was hard to believe what happened to them could happen in Ireland. They worked in appalling conditions with horrendous hours and non-existent pay. Some of these cases have been before the courts where the migrant workers have won compensation. However, in some cases, compensation has yet to be paid. There is need for legislation to protect workers in these positions. Community employment schemes have vulnerable people working on them whose rights also need to be protected.

Tomorrow the House will debate the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill which will provide for equality in respect of basic working and employment conditions such as annual leave, work time, rest breaks, public holidays and pay. Our workers must be treated fairly with basic working, employment and pay conditions because we are seeing an increase in inequalities in our society. Deputy Alex White said he saw the Bill as a great achievement. He spoke about ideology. For me, ideology is based on principles of social justice and fairness which must be applied to those who are vulnerable and most in need of protection.

See this speech in context