Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The contrary is the case. By saying "the desirability", it is clearly saying this is something we are trying to achieve whereas if one leaves out "the desirability", it is merely a neutral issue. This is not diluting the importance. It is making clear that, in the hierarchy of issues, these are matters that are desirable that the court must seek to pursue. It also recognises that there is a balance to be struck between a range of issues that are desirable.

The purpose that the drafters are trying to achieve is not different from the one that Deputy Tóibín is pursuing and the argument is more about what is the proper way to draft. By putting in "the desirability", it is clearly saying to the Labour Court that this is something we seek to achieve, we seek to strive to achieve a number of matters, we recognise that at times they will be in conflict, and there is a balancing act to be conducted between the two of them and they are not absolutes.

We are not arguing about an issue of substance. The purpose of putting this legislation in place is to seek to maintain fair and reasonable living standards while seeking to ensure that the sectors are able to evolve to changing circumstances and be appropriate in dealing with the different challenges of employment and unemployment, competitiveness etc. that arise in each sector, which the Deputy Tóibín himself recognised when he pointed out the interests of small businesses and workers are all tied up in this.

While I am not accepting the amendment, it is not that we are poles apart. It is merely the phraseology, which I am advised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is the appropriate way to enshrine this. We recognise these are purposes that they are seeking to pursue.

See this speech in context