Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This is Labour's first Private Members' time in the new Dáil and we had no difficulty in choosing the issue we want to prioritise. The previous Government was devoted to cleaning up the economic mess. Now, Ireland is in a strong position to grow again. My party's priorities are all about making sure the benefits of strong growth are fairly shared and about working to improve the quality of life for working people. For us, getting the economy back on track was not an end in itself, it was a means to getting people back to work and getting pay back into their pockets. Who else in government would have ensured that Ireland, uniquely, would have delivered two rises in the minimum wage against the backdrop of the worst economic recession in our history? As the economy continues to recover and unemployment continues to fall, we want to see the benefits of recovery translated into better working conditions and improved pay, particularly for low-paid workers.

Of course, the world of work is changing fast. Workers have adapted to more flexible terms and conditions but, in all this change, we need still to protect the basic requirement of decent standards for working people. Work is not just an input into production, it is about human dignity and respect. For some people, the needs of the economy require labour to become commoditised. We reject the forced casualisation of jobs. We reject a future that sees workers become trapped in job and income insecurity or in a succession of short-term, low quality jobs, with no access to adequate social protection. In particular, there are too many women now working in jobs that are poorly paid, insecure and outside or at the very edge of our employment protection laws.

I and my party have no interest in the notion of "jobs at any price" or in the spread of casual labour at the lowest wages. This Government and Dáil must not preside over an economic recovery model that is fuelled by a ruthless race to the bottom or the sacrifice of employment rights that have been hard won and that are the mark of decency and a progressive society. What people want, and are entitled to, are sustainable, secure and reasonably well-paid jobs. Therefore, what we have outlined in the motion is a programme to tackle abusive terms and conditions of employment, such as low pay, insecure hours and enforced and bogus self-employment.

We are seeking to continue with the work we started in government. We installed a Labour Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Ged Nash, now a Senator, whose role was to insist that this country needs not just more jobs but quality jobs. During his period with responsibility for labour affairs, he drove the Labour Party agenda of making work pay, enhancing dignity at work and reducing inequality. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, why we brought in new industrial relations laws to rebalance the interests of workers and employers and why we turned public attention to the abusive relationship that surrounds the casualisation of work.

Let us be clear about this. We are not a nation of Luddites. We have a small, open economy and we respond to the needs of the global marketplace. We recognise there are sectors in the economy that place a premium on flexibility in the workplace. However, for us in the Labour Party, the basic requirements for a decent working life must be maintained. We want the right balance between enterprise's need for flexibility and a worker's right to job security - to a basic level of predictability in the terms and conditions of work.

There is a growing number of people in precarious employment, that is, non-standard employment that is poorly paid, insecure or completely outside the employment protection laws. Precarious employment is not gender neutral: women are invariably over-represented in this type of work. In government, we highlighted several of these issues. First, we commissioned research and recommendations on zero and low hours which show we have a serious and growing problem. People working under these contracts are being told, in effect, they can work on a casual basis. For these workers, hours at work and payslips can vary dramatically, with no guarantee of any work at all from week to week. These workers do not know from one week to the other what they are to be paid or how they will face consistent bills. Erratic pay produces massive insecurity and is entirely destructive of any attempt to plan finances and plan a future for workers and their families. These are frankly perverse arrangements aimed at downgrading the status of employment. Workers are entitled to basic security in their employment in order to plan lives for themselves and their families.

We believe this Dáil must legislate to bring these abuses to an end. However, dealing with a phenomenon of this scale - protecting workers against the casualisation of jobs - will require more than just one quick-fix legislative amendment. It needs detailed collective consideration and the agreement of this House.

Low pay must continue to be high on our agenda. The minimum wage is but a starting point and we want to go further. The minimum wage is our statutory floor, whereas the living wage is different. It recognises there are sectors in the economy in danger of becoming addicted to low pay and there are many employers who can afford to but refuse to pay more than the statutory minimum. The living wage is an independently assessed and agreed measure of the income necessary to meet basic needs, such as housing, food, utilities, clothing, transport, health care, child care and recreation. From the Government's viewpoint, the living wage boosts taxes, reduces the welfare spend and allows for investment in essential public services.

I accept that progress on this will have to be incremental and that it cannot be done at the stroke of a pen. In government, the then Minister of State and now Member of the Upper House, Ged Nash, took the first steps to put this on the public agenda at a forum for employers, unions and civil society. The Dáil needs to go further. We need to look perhaps at the UK experience and at the benefits provided for society, for the economy and for businesses there. I believe we can ensure that the State and all State agencies will become living wage employers and that we should impose a living wage condition on public procurement contracts. I also believe that, in the lifetime of this Government, increases in the national minimum wage should be continued until it reaches two thirds of median income. It is high time we set about legislating for common and comprehensive definitions of employment and self-employment so there will be one definition for tax, social welfare and employment protection purposes. We need to crack down on bogus self-employment practices that exploit workers and leave them without legal protection.

There was, in truth, only so much that we could do during what was a short period in office. The then Minister of State, Senator Nash, delivered on the recommendations of Low Pay Commission and the national minimum wage, and he produced collective bargaining legislation and laws on registered employment agreements, sectoral employment orders and the re-establishment of the joint labour committees. However, like any busy Minister, he left some work undone. Many of the issues that need to be addressed now are set out in the motion which we have put before the House.

We do not want the foot to be taken off the accelerator with regard to these important objectives. That is why we wrote last week to all parties and groups in this House, looking for consensus on these matters. When we drafted the motion, we hoped to attract support from wide a range of groups and parties - in fact, everybody with a progressive view of work. When we wrote to all the parties, Sinn Féin - typically, immediately and out of hand - rejected any effort at co-operation with us. That is not too surprising. Sinn Féin is a party of professional contrarians, opposed to everything and anything, including the Opposition in this House. When an agreed and progressive road forward is clearly signposted, they go yomping off alone into the wilderness. It turns out that those in the Anti-Austerity Alliance are exactly the same, except they cannot even dissent by consensus with Sinn Féin and have made their own separate amendment.

The position of these two parties on our motion betrays not just their churlishness but their ignorance about the issues. It passes belief that any party which seeks to support Irish workers could know so little about the current industrial relations landscape. Sinn Féin and AAA-PBP state we in the Labour Party did nothing to protect the rights of Dunnes Stores workers and that we failed to provide specific or adequate legislation. Do they not know that this very week the Labour Court is hearing the claim against Dunnes Stores brought by Mandate, or that the claim has been brought under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act that was introduced last year by the then Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash? The Dunnes Stores dispute will be one of the first hearings under the new legislation.

I am entirely in sympathy with Mandate in its struggle against the stubborn refusal of Dunnes Stores management to provide its workers with some certainty on hours and earnings. The refusal of management to sit down and negotiate with the workers through their union is nothing short of a national disgrace. The workers have shown real courage and conviction in pursuing their case and I and the Labour Party fully support them. I and my party did not just mouth off about this issue. We are not content with simply carping and whinging. We challenged and changed the law and we put the workers on a proper footing. The new Act allows the Labour Court to intervene, even when employers do not turn up, and it allows the Labour Court to issue binding determinations on pay and conditions that are enforceable in the Circuit Court. The Labour Court can now look to comparators, both unionised and non-unionised, and it can see what collective agreements have been established as the norm for the sector. John Douglas and his union welcomed the Act. They are prepared to engage with the legislation and advance their workers. In the same way, Mandate has also welcomed our investigation into zero and low-hour contracts. This is real political leadership and engagement and real co-operation with the labour movement in all its branches. It is the way real progress is made. It is the way the Labour Party operates.

As I stated on the day I became leader, the Labour Party does not do theatrics. We offer real change and real solutions to people's dilemmas. Sinn Féin and the Trotskyists, on the other hand, have a critique but no solution. Quite frankly, they are out of their depth when it comes to genuine industrial relations issues.

We are almost at the first anniversary of the Clerys liquidation. That liquidation was engineered so as to ensure the Clerys building was separated from the employees and staff. I welcome to the Gallery some of the Clerys workers to view the debate. The actions taken by the company amounted, I believe, to an effort to subvert both company and employment protection law. We need to emphasise that the workers are not out of pocket as regards statutory entitlements. The State became obliged to pay all the sums that were due to the company's employees. It is the taxpayer that bears this multi-million euro loss.

I hope the Minister, in replying to the motion, will be able to give us an update and to spell out in clear terms the current position on the various initiatives taken by the former Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, under the previous administration. He published a report which outlined Companies Act provisions enabling the courts to ensure that all assets that ought to be available to the creditors can be clawed back for their benefit. The as yet untested section 599 of the Companies Act featured in this analysis. The report pointed out that the Minister for Social Protection had standing as a preferred creditor in the winding up, and that this remedy was potentially available on behalf of the workers who are out of pocket. I understand the Attorney General has now advised on this issue and I ask the Minister to inform the House on what action is to be taken in this regard.

Last year, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the former Minister of State, Senator Nash, appointed two experts to examine legal protection for workers where operations and assets were moved to separate legal entities. Mr. Kevin Duffy, chairman of the Labour Court and Ms Nessa Cahill, a company law specialist, have published their report with recommendations and it is on the public record. Will the Minister tell us what is her attitude and that of the Government to these recommendations? When can we expect to see action on foot of the report? It would be a pity if the change in administration resulted in less impetus to drive forward these urgently needed reforms.

The priority must be to ensure that situations such as that which befell the Clerys workers can never happen again. Our motion meets this requirement and I hope it will enjoy support across the House. This would be the signal we would give to people under pressure in the workforce tonight.

I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context