Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I welcome this Bill and the opening comments of the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs in introducing it. In the context of a point raised by the previous Opposition spokesperson, we must be clear that part of the necessity for this legislation, in the first instance, has been the ongoing legal situation. As a Member of this House and when I was a Member of the other House, I criticised the fact that too often impending court decisions or actual court decisions have made us revisit legislation which in the first instance we did not get right. An attempt has been made with several Bills to introduce a shell of enabling legislation, the meat of which came through by secondary sources, mainly through ministerial order. I especially welcome the Minister of State's comments in not only addressing the anomaly that exists in the primary legislation that we are amending but his intention to allow further amendments to this legislation, by way of ministerial order, which will involve the Houses in a right and proper way. I believe we will avoid such mistakes in the future. That is the first ground for the introduction of this legislation.

This Bill is part of a suite of measures, one of which, the Employment Law Compliance Act, is in place. The Government announced, through the social partners, its intention to draft other legislation which will result in creating a clearer picture in terms of this area. On that ground, I hope the main Opposition party will revisit its position. This is necessary amending legislation. It should be addressed in the spirit of trying to bring about these changes to the law as quickly as possible.

We are talking about a system that has largely suited us well. The existence of the joint labour committees is evidenced by one of the most recent decisions concerning the hospitality sector, the addressing of premium rate for Sunday work. We have missed the opportunity to have a debate on the wider issue of the prevalence of commercial activity on Sundays, but given the nature of the need to stimulate any economic activity, that is a debate that has passed us by. We have become an Americanised economy and the need to have people working seven days a week almost 24 hours a day is something we have built into our economic model. Severe competitive pressures existed in regard to the premium rate for Sunday work in the hospitality sector. The joint labour committee has reached a sound and wise decision in the constraints of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. It is a system that works and it is informed by how employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements are reached. It is important that we can use the existing structure, modulated to the extent that it needs to be, and build on the sound aspects of social partnership, of which we probably need more at this stage in our economic history than we did at any other time.

I noted the Minister of State's reference to the former Minister and former Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, in his role in the 1946 legislation. We are approaching the 50th anniversary of probably his best political achievement, while working with T. K. Whitaker, namely, the formulation of the economic plan which took Ireland from being a doldrum economic State and gave it a new economic future. A recent forum was held on Seán Lemass's contribution. It focused very much on the theme that the economic climate at the end of the 1950s has parallels with the current economic climate. We need to look at how we can readjust our economic parameters to make sure the leap we need to make can be taken in the most effective and most competitive way possible.

The context of getting that competitive balance right and giving entrants to the labour force equal opportunities and a fair means of engaging their labour is something we as legislators need to get right. The Minister of State in his early weeks of taking office raised the question of a debate on the minimum wage. It is right to have debate on such an issue at any time. He got a negative media reaction to raising that issue. Our minimum wage affects a very small proportion of our labour force, some 2%. While it is a high rate in terms of other European countries and our economic competitors, it has been set in the context of our having a cost of living that is higher than that in those countries. Even while we are in a deflationary situation, the public mood and public debate is informed by the fact that while we have wage rates that are exaggerated throughout our economy, a tolerance for changing the rates, especially at the lowest level, cannot be seen until the wages at the highest level begin to be tackled. We in this House and in the political system have a role to play in that respect. We have not done it very effectively in the 18 months during which our economic circumstances have changed. In terms of the upcoming budget, we need to be realistic about who gets paid what before we can talk about what those paid the least receive. I hope the debate as it proceeds will progress along those lines.

Another important aspect of the Minister of State's speech, as mentioned by Senator Phelan, is the context of Irish industrial relations and labour legislation as opposed to other European countries and the use of spurious argument in the debate on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty in regard to whether we have good industrial standards in this country and whether they will be affected by a positive vote on the Lisbon treaty. It is clear from the Minister of State's contribution, and augmented by Senator Phelan, that that is not the case. We do provide a measure of protection in our labour law system that goes beyond what exists in other European countries and this will be maintained through legislation such as this.

It is hoped, rather than the downward pressure of lowest common denominators some of the opponents of the European Union and Lisbon treaty argue, this will be part of our contribution towards strengthening those standards in Europe. The experience of Ireland in other aspects of employment law, namely, women and equality and upward wage rates, would seem to confirm that when we were lagging behind in many areas we were forced to meet higher standards and where we have higher standards, equally we, as good members of the European Union, should be making our argument for better European standards in this area.

Some of the spurious arguments relate to the minimum wage. The Cóir poster, which is appalling, claims a minimum wage of €1.84 will pertain if people vote "Yes" in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The Bill, though slight in content, is part of package of measures that will result in improvements in this area. It will build on the strength of the existing infrastructure and will remove any doubt about the role of this and the other House in terms of ensuring any further changes, in particular in regard to definitions, how the constitution of the JLCs are made and how we will further change EROs and REAs in the future, will be such that there should be no legal doubt that we are doing our work in a proper manner and, as a result, are bringing about better legislation.