John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him and his officials for their help to members of the Opposition prior to the introduction of this Bill.

There are a number of issues I would like to address in my contribution. I am glad the Minister of State, in the context of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty, referred in the last part of his speech to the Laval judgment. Some rather spurious allegations have been placed on posters throughout the country about the potential impact of a "Yes" vote on the minimum wage. We have known for some time that the Lisbon treaty has nothing to do with our ability to determine our own national minimum wage but it is important those bogus arguments be blown out of the water. In this regard I concur with what the Minister of State said in his contribution.

This Bill is relatively small legislation which addresses a number of specific issues that have arisen over recent years. That is one of the primary reasons we in Fine Gael have some difficulties with it. We feel it is an opportunity for the Government to address the way the JLC structure operates and we regret it has failed to use this opportunity to introduce uniform measures throughout the country. However, I will deal with that later. I have no difficulty with the extension, as mentioned in the Minister of State's contribution, of the definition of "worker" to include VEC staff. The current position which pertains as a result of a Labour Court decision with regard to county council and HSE employees is now enshrined in primary legislation, which is welcome.

The Bill has been introduced on foot of an impending High Court case, probably to be heard in the early months of next year, which follows on from a number of similar cases over recent years, including one involving the Irish Hotels Federation and the Burke case in 1979 in which Mr. Justice Henchy pointed out that there may be a constitutional difficulty with the arrangement resulting from the 1946 legislation, to which the Minister of State referred, whereby the final decision on EROs and REAs rested with the Labour Court rather than the Oireachtas and the Minister with responsibility for labour. I have no difficulty with correcting that anomaly, but I question the fact it has taken 30 years to follow up on the judgment of Mr. Justice Henchy when I was one year old in 1979. It is welcome none the less.

I will spell out clearly the Fine Gael Party's position on JLCs. We are adamant that their role in protecting the most vulnerable workers in our economy should be upheld. Often, people covered by JLCs are among the lowest paid and, as the Minister of State said, many of them are not members of trade unions. In addition, many are younger or migrant workers. It is important the JLC structure of protection remains in place in some form into the future. It is also important to point out that the JLC system as it currently stands does not just refer to wages and direct payments but also to the conditions under which people work. Fine Gael has a clear position on protecting the lowest paid people in our economy.

This Bill gave the Government an opportunity to correct the anomalies that exist under the current JLC system. Our system stems from the introduction in 1909 of trade boards across Britain and Ireland, as well as the old age pension and a number of other measures, by the Liberal Government. This was reformed by the then Minister, Seán Lemass, in 1946, as mentioned by the Minister of State, when the trade boards were replaced by JLCs. It is important to note that in the UK the trade boards do not exist any more. When minimum wage legislation was introduced in 1997, the old system of the trade boards had already been dismantled. It is regrettable the Government has failed in this opportunity to ensure we have uniform treatment of workers and employers in different sectors of the economy. It is not acceptable that in certain sectors of the economy a separate JLC will operate in Cork, Dublin or elsewhere in determining wage rates. The Government has missed an opportunity to propose a uniform mechanism throughout the country.

I made an observation when reading some of the Minister of State's comments. I do not wish to attack him personally. I am delighted he has been made a Minister of State because he brings to the job a clean pair of hands and he has good ideas. However, he mentioned shortly after his appointment that he would consider a significant reform of how JLCs operate at present. Despite this, in his first Bill it seems he is passing up this opportunity. The current method of operation of JLCs is that four representatives of employers and four of employees sit in committee, with an independent chair, as the Minister of State pointed out. However, the independent chairperson has a casting vote. In most situations in which a vote is called, the employers will be on one side and the employees on the other, and Fine Gael believes the chairperson should not have a casting vote. There should be real agreement between employees and employers and the Labour Court can then make its decision. It places the role of the independent chairperson in question if he or she were to cast a vote on the ultimate outcome of the deliberations of the committee.

The Minister of State referred to the inability to pay clause that exists under the minimum wage legislation. Such a clause is not contained in the Bill under discussion but the Minister of State indicated that such a clause is being considered and will be introduced as a Government amendment on Committee Stage. In the current economic depression it is imperative that such a clause would be included in this legislation. I would welcome its inclusion, provided employers can show clearly that they have an inability to pay under the current economic circumstances.

It is worth noting the JLC mechanisms in the catering and hotel sectors, as the Minister of State mentioned, have ensured the Sunday premium rate has been reduced from double time to time plus one third. I welcome that because, economically, it is more sustainable in the current climate. I also welcome it from a practical point of view because the previous Sunday premium rate was having a detrimental impact on services provided at weekends and on bank holidays in small and large towns throughout the country. The current premium rate is more in line with what can be sustained into the future.

The Minister of State mentioned agreements reached in the agricultural sector and other sectors in recent months to postpone increases in payments under the JLC system to workers in those sectors. That mechanism was too slow. We have been in an economic downturn for a considerable number of months, yet in May of this year increases under decisions of JLCs across the country were still being paid while employers were experiencing economic hardship arising from our current economic difficulties. The system, as it currently operates, is too slow.

I welcome the Minister of State's announcement concerning an inability to pay clause. However, this Bill represents a missed opportunity to introduce a more fundamental reform to ensure the protection of the weakest and most vulnerable workers in our economy, the sustainability of existing jobs and the creation of jobs in those sectors in the future.