Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Down here, Sinn Féin is a party of protest, the worker's friend. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin is a party of government, with a record of its own to defend on the North's low-wage economy. Down here, Sinn Féin pretends it would storm the barricades while up North it is busy defending the battlements. As far as this part of the country is concerned, as the Minister, Deputy Bruton, has outlined, under this Government we have seen a paradigm shift in the economy. This has everything to do with employment, both more jobs and better jobs. Unemployment has dropped by one third since 2012. It is at its lowest level in six years and the ESRI believes it will fall below 9% over the next 12 months.

Of the almost 90,000 more people at work since the launch of the Action Plan for Jobs in 2012, a remarkable 86% of those jobs have been full-time rather than casual or temporary positions. A net total of 29,100 new jobs were created last year alone, again, mostly full-time. The proportion of workers on temporary contracts has now fallen back to the pre-recession level of 9.5%. This is remains significantly below the EU average of 14.4%. In fact, the CSO data for March 2015 shows that the number of casual and part-time workers on the live register was down 10.5% on March 2014. These figures show the success of our twin-track approach of creating the conditions for job growth and helping people back to work.

There is much more to do. There are still too many people jobless. We are working to build on the work already done and to achieve full employment, as the Minister, Deputy Bruton said, within the next three years. Making work pay, enhancing dignity at work and reducing inequality are cornerstones of this Government's agenda. They are at the very heart of what I am seeking to do in government. Indeed, one of the first actions of this Government was to restore the minimum wage to €8.65 from €7.65, thus reversing one of the previous Government's last cuts. Our systematic approach has included several components that go to make up a comprehensive and coherent package. These include the Low Pay Commission, action to restore registered employment agreements, provisions to deal with the absence of collective bargaining and action on zero-hour and low-hour contracts.

Setting up the Low Pay Commission was one of the key commitments in the statement of Government priorities agreed last July. The commission was launched on 26 February to operate on an interim administrative basis and held its first meeting the same day. Legislation to provide for a statutory basis for the commission has been through pre-legislative scrutiny and will be published very shortly. The principal function of the Low Pay Commission will be to examine annually and make recommendations on the national minimum wage, with a view to securing that the minimum wage is adjusted incrementally and progressively increased over time, without damage to enterprise or employment. Far from being limited in its focus, as this motion would have it, the Low Pay Commission will also be able to examine any matter generally related to its functions. A work programme will be agreed by the Government and presented to the commission each February. Nothing relevant will be excluded from its deliberations. I can assure the House of that. The commission will be required to make evidence-based recommendations. I hope that, as soon as I receive its first report in July, we can agree a work programme to take it up to next February. A successful Low Pay Commission will be one whose recommendations will be accepted and acted upon by successive Governments. It will be statutorily independent in its functions.

Over the past year, there has been increasing debate, nationally and internationally, about zero-hour contracts. On the one hand, some employers would say they can provide flexibility, efficiency in human resource management, more resilience in downturns and so on. On the other hand, there are obvious disadvantages for employers and they can include, as we all know, a limited integration of workers in the business, lower motivation and poorer work quality. For some workers in particular circumstances, there may be an element of flexibility in reconciling work and family life or studies and, for some, it may serve as a stepping stone into the labour market. Clearly there are negatives, which can include lower levels of job and income security, lack of benefits, lower job satisfaction and the risk that a whole cohort of workers could become trapped in a succession of short-term, low quality jobs with inadequate social protection. Such a possibility is of obvious concern to all of us in this House and is a major concern of mine.

Clearly, Ireland and the labour market have changed quite dramatically since we last legislated on this issue in 1997 in the context of the Organisation of Working Time Act. We need to map out and better understand the prevalence and impact of zero-hour contracts, and indeed low-hour contracts, in Irish employment, to better understand their impact on employees and to establish if any new policy responses are required. That is why last February I announced the appointment of a team from the University of Limerick to carry out precisely such a study into the prevalence of zero-hour and low-hour contracts and their impact on employees. This is the first such study commissioned by any Irish Government. Its key objective is to fill the gap in terms of knowledge to provide hard data on zero-hour and low-hour contracts in our economy and to enable me, as Minister of State, to make evidence-based policy recommendations to Government.

There are plenty of opinions and recommendations out there right now, ranging from alaissez-faire attitude, a do-nothing approach to complete prohibition. I have my own preliminary assessment and my own views about what sort of package we might need. However, I will not make my case without the evidence and I will not choose what response we need without an expert analysis of the problem and expert recommendations for a solution. Having commissioned this study, it would be fatuous for me to pre-empt it, just a couple of short months before I get it. I expect to have this piece of work before the end of the summer and my aim is to have considered its findings and to have brought my recommendations to the Government before this House resumes business in the autumn.

My objective, and that of my party and this Government, is to ensure that the recovery is not built on a ruthless race to the bottom or the sacrifice of hard-won economic and social gains and indeed rights. These rights, as far as I am concerned, include basic job and income security.

If the 1997 Act has been overtaken by new employment practices and its protections are now inadequate, we will take action. Any sense that there is wholesale insecurity in jobs or a lack of protection has no place in modern Ireland. The Government has already moved on a number of fronts in relation to wage setting, including reforms to the JLC system through the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2012. More recently, the Government approved the drafting of legislation to provide a revised legislative framework to replace registered employment agreements. This follows the 2013 judgment by the Supreme Court in the McGowan case, which struck down the previous regime.

The legislation has two purposes. First, it will reintroduce a mechanism for the registration of employment agreements between an employer or employers and trade unions governing terms and conditions at individual enterprise level. These agreements will not be legally binding beyond the subscribing parties. The Bill will, separately, provide a new statutory framework for establishing minimum rates of pay and other terms and conditions of employment for specified type, class or group of workers. In effect, this is a framework to replace the former sectoral REA system. In future, at the request separately or jointly of organisations substantially representative of employers and-or workers, the Labour Court can initiate a review of the pay and pension and sick pay entitlements of workers in a particular sector and, if it deems it appropriate, make a recommendation to the Minister on the matter. If the Minister is satisfied that the procedures provided for in the new legislation have been complied with by the Labour Court, he shall make an order that will be binding across the sector to which it relates and will be enforceable by the National Employment Rights Authority. Employers and workers in some sectors are anxious that this legislation progresses quickly. I expect to see it enacted by mid-year.

At the end of 2014, I obtained Cabinet approval to draft legislation for an improved framework for workers who seek to improve their terms and conditions in situations where there are no arrangements for collective bargaining. This legislation will fulfil one of the most significant commitments in the programme for Government. This measure will ensure that where there is no collective bargaining workers can, through their unions, raise claims about pay, terms and conditions and have these determined by the Labour Court and secured by way of Circuit Court order. The legislation will also ensure workers will not be victimised for doing so and will include strong protections for workers who are victimised for exercising their rights. Again, I expect this legislation to be published in this session and to be passed as soon as possible.

I am of course more than aware of the Dunnes Stores dispute. The dispute concerns a range of issues, including the introduction of banded hours contracts, individual and collective representational rights and the use of temporary contracts. The union has sought to engage with the company on these issues and the matter was referred by the union to the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 last October. However, the company was not represented at the Labour Court hearing. The court found it regrettable that the company declined to participate in the investigation of the dispute or to put forward its position on the union's claims. In its recommendation, the Labour Court noted, as it had done previously, that Dunnes Stores and Mandate trade union were party to a 1996 collective agreement which provides a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. The court pointed out that the dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both spirit and intent. I agree. I have said that I regret that the company decided against attending the Labour Court hearing, contrary to good industrial relations practice.

In my view, the experience and expertise of the Labour Court offer the most appropriate and effective avenue for resolving these issues. I continue to urge both parties to avail of the services of the State's industrial relations machinery, which remain available to assist them. This offers the best way for the parties involved in this dispute to resolve their differences. Ultimately, I agree with the general secretary of Mandate in his open letter to Dunnes Stores management, when he said, "It is my belief that as with most disputes between parties, they can only be resolved via dialogue between the parties". It may well be, of course, that the passing of the legislation I referred to earlier will bring about a changed dynamic in industrial relations and cause some parties to be more flexible in their positions. The content of the legislation can be transformative in terms of employer and employee relationships in Ireland.

My focus tonight has been to set out the positive changes that have already taken place under this Government and to highlight the work in hand that has as its core objective the maintenance and improvement of the rights of workers, particularly vulnerable workers. Sinn Féin's motion focuses on the negative. I agree with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, on that front. For example, the motion refers to the OECD's economic outlook for 2014 and claims Ireland has the second highest percentage of low-paying jobs in the OECD after the United States of America. However, the motion chooses to ignore the fact that the same OECD report shows that average Irish earnings in 2013 were the sixth highest of the 34 countries compared. The same OECD report clearly indicates that "while the Irish labour market suffered a massive shock, indicators of job quality show that on average Irish jobs are of relatively good quality when compared to other countries".

See this speech in context