Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Derek Keating.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which is yet another part of the jigsaw that this proactive coalition Government is putting together to create competitive and sustainable employment in this country. I would like to recognise the huge contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Perry; it is refreshing to see a businessman who is flexing his muscles on legislation.

This Bill promotes harmonious relationships between employers and workers, which is important. As any person in business realises, having a content and happy workforce means greater productivity, which is the whole aim of business. The ultimate aim is to deal with the challenges and opportunities that the current economy and labour market conditions present to us. The Bill also deals with registered employment agreements, REAs.

The amendment of section 27 of the 1946 Act contains many parts. One which stands out is that the parties to an agreement must be substantially representative of both the workers and the employer. This is important because there are always rumblings that certain unions or representatives are not quite as inclusive or representative as they feel they are. This sets down in legislation that the people purporting to represent workers or employers need to be expressly involved and to be truly representative. The amendment to section 27 also sets out consideration of whether it is appropriate to register an agreement. It states that the court shall have regard to a number of factors. The first, as I stated earlier, is that the parties involved are representative; this is important. It also sets out core principles, including the fact that agreements will be binding on both workers and employers. It promotes harmonious relations between workers and employers and, if used properly, should facilitate the avoidance of industrial unrest.

These agreements will also be viewed in terms of their potential impact on employment levels in various sectors. What will be considered here is the desirability of maintaining fair and sustainable rates of remuneration for the sectors in question. This is where the real work is to be done. Obviously, most employers want to get work done at a reasonable price that keeps them competitive; and, of course, employees will want what they regard as fair pay. The task at hand is to strike a balance. Previous Governments have shirked their responsibility in this regard by essentially buying each agreement. They were not really agreements; they were in fact purchases. They purchased industrial stability at the cost, as we all see now, of making our economy uncompetitive. This Bill arises from the Government's obligation to address this legacy, and hopefully we will become a better country for it. The hard-learned lessons from the negligence of the past will also have to be taken into account in maintaining our competitiveness. When considering levels of employment in each sector, is important that we do not allow one sector to run out of control, as happened in the building industry. When this happens, it causes a lot of pain for a long time afterwards.

The Bill also states that levels of wages in comparative sectors must be recognised. Although we would all love to pay ourselves loads, if we become uncompetitive we will not have any work to do. The Bill also sets out procedures to be used when one or the other party wants to vary an agreement and both parties are not agreeable to doing this. Initially, the case goes to the Labour Relations Commission for investigation; if agreement is not reached there, it goes to the courts for their recommendation. The aim of the legislation is to avoid protracted employment disputes which will affect a lot of people. It puts the Minister in a position in which he can make a decision on the court's outcome.

Another important aspect of this new legislation is the provision that where an REA is in place, the employer may apply for a court exemption. This may, on the face of it, sound as though employers are just looking for a way to pay workers less. However, this is not the aim. The provision is fairly tightly regulated; exemptions will apply for periods of not less than three months and not greater than two years. This applies to situations in which a company needs to get through a difficult period, when it may need to break such agreements in order to ensure it can keep all of its employees or keep the company in existence. A company seeking to do this must have a current tax clearance certificate, which is important because it shows that the business is up to scratch and the employer is honourable. It is also incumbent on the employer to notify the workers concerned about the financial difficulties and to be open about them. This is the only reason for which it should be applied. Hopefully, this can be spelled out to the employees in a fashion that is agreeable to all. In fairness, long-term sustainability is what we should be seeking.

Putting this in legislation is important because any break that can be given to businesses whereby they will be able to stay in business is vital. I have set up a small business and in many small businesses these issues can be thrashed out across the table with one's employees. However, this is not always possible in the case of large companies where the employer does not have time to do it and personal relationships have not been built up over time. In essence, we are trying to bring the strengths of small businesses to larger businesses. Hopefully, building this co-operation with each other will lead this country to become a flexible and very good place for people to work. We will not always be living in bad times. People seem to think that we will never get out of the current devastating situation, but that is not true. We will get out of it.

I must reply to some of the suggestions made by Deputies earlier in the debate, and I will do so wearing my employer's hat, an employer in a business that is, thankfully, working quite successfully. Some of the Members suggested a wealth tax. I do not understand this. The objective of a business is to make money and in many cases, such as mine, it is reinvested in the business. That is good for the economy and for the workers. After listening to some Members' contributions I believe they do not understand business. They do not understand the ups and downs and the fact that in small businesses one works with one's employees. "With" is a very important word in this case. If one works with one's employees and if they understand that one is as concerned about their welfare as with the position of the business, everybody will get on and the business will succeed.

Members mentioned the World Economic Forum. That is a world away from small businesses that are trying to survive. One cannot ignore wages either. They are an intrinsic part of every business. To say that wages must be parked and never touched is wrong. An employer reviews the wages every year and if he or she can, will increase them. In difficult times, however, the main focus is on keeping the business going successfully. I do not agree with the claim that this Bill weakens workers' rights. It is not meant to do that.

I really take exception to the term "ruthless employers". I have never regarded myself as a ruthless employer, and I have no time for people who are. This Bill is not for ruthless employers but for the ordinary decent employer who wants to develop his business and work with his workforce in a progressive fashion. That is the spirit of this legislation. The Members who criticise it tend to criticise everything, and it is very easy to criticise everything. I urge them to look constructively at the legislation.

Another Deputy was correct to point out that beef prices have increased by 50%. I am a farmer too and I am glad he does not begrudge the farmers. However, it should be borne in mind that food price inflation will happen. Food prices have fought inflation back for 20 years. There has not been an increase in the price of milk, beef or grain for almost 20 years. That has kept inflation down, but now prices are rebounding like a spring. That will be a fact of life, but that is a matter for another day.

This legislation is progressive. I am delighted it has been brought forward in such a fashion. This country will emerge from the current difficulties. I see it happening at present as we are seeing a rebound in the countryside. It is a breath of fresh air to welcome legislation that will protect employees and encourage employers to further develop their businesses.

See this speech in context