Alex White (Labour)

Although I am not recording a conflict of interest, I come from a background in which I am a legal practitioner specialising in employment and labour law, representing at different times employers, employees, trade unions and, occasionally, employer groups.

This is important amending legislation which, in its broad scope, the Labour Party will support. The Minister of State has indicated that it arises from a commitment made by the Government in the review of Towards 2016 that certain items of legislation would be brought forward to honour agreements made with the social partners in the course of that process.

The Minister of State made reference to the legislation introduced by Seán Lemass in the 1940s to address a particular issue at the time. In many ways, it is still evident and it is not just a matter of the necessity of ensuring competitiveness, to which Senator Callely referred, but also the scourge of very low pay which, I must remind my colleagues, is still a problem in this country. People are paid low rates of pay which does not always meet the statutory requirement of the minimum wage per hour. Abuses continue in the economy in pay and conditions. While we must take account of the importance we attach to competitiveness, particularly of the small businesses to which Senator Callely referred, we cannot lose sight of the necessity that we, as legislators, must bear in mind the needs of the most vulnerable in society. I refer, in particular, to those on low pay.

This is where the 1940s legislation comes from, particularly that relating to employment regulation orders which seek to address the situation faced by employees without representation. There is no representation for many working in this country. I must remind my colleagues that many people are afraid to seek representation. Many employers refuse to co-operate, meet or engage with trade unions, the representatives of their employees. When I hear colleagues refer to and criticise "the unions" in the context of the current crisis, they are quick to forget that unions comprise tens of thousands of workers with families who are seeking to make a living. When we talk about the unions responding to the resistance to cuts in public service pay, they are doing nothing more than representing the genuine problems facing people who work in these environments. It is not always a question of low pay, there are many workers, including in the public service, who are on relatively low pay. If we are honest with ourselves in this Chamber and have a debate on what constitutes high, medium and low pay, many would be surprised at the amount of money out of which many are trying to eke a living.

The joint labour committee system, dating back to the 1940s, was intended to address this issue. There have been advances in pay and the protection of terms and conditions. The minimum wage is one of these elements and vitally important. It has changed the landscape to a considerable extent. However, I am glad to see the Government accepts there is still a need for the system of registered employment agreements, as well as the joint labour committee system. I happily acknowledge there is no suggestion from it that this should not be so. This legislation strengthens the system, particularly in ensuring orders made by the Labour Court are taken on by the Minister and made by ministerial order as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, this will fortify orders in respect of challenges that have been made and may be made in the future. It is entirely appropriate that this is the case.

Some still refer to the trade unions and employer groups as social partners. Sometimes I ask myself with whom are they partners. Perhaps they are partners with each other but it looks increasingly clear that there is little partnership between these groups and the Government. It seems there is little or no engagement.

The president of SIPTU made a speech at his party conference some days ago which some thought was a fiery contribution and a call to arms. I suggest people read it. It was robust and vigorous in its defence of his members but I picked out his appeal to the Government to engage with the trade union movement on the current crisis. If there is to be a sense of confidence, a point made by all sides, people will not make sacrifices on pay, taxation and public services if they are excluded from the process. They will not do so if they are characterised as being the problem rather than included in finding a solution. I do not believe there will be any genuine progress or resolution to the current crisis without genuine and serious engagement with the trade union movement. I do not say that in any sense as a threat, and nor should it ever be put as a threat by anybody, whether trade unions or otherwise, but simply as a statement of fact. All one has to do is look at the late 1980s, the last time we were in such a crisis as we are now, when the involvement of the trade union movement was crucial to turning around the economy. It will not happen without them this time either; that is a statement of fact. It is vital that the Government realises that genuine engagement needs to occur rather than an attempt in some quarters - perhaps not directly by Government but by its cheerleaders in the media and elsewhere - to scapegoat and seek to exclude as unrealistic the trade union view.

The Bill is important and the requirement that the orders be made by the Minister and laid before the Houses is good. I want to make a point on the inability to pay. I heard what Senator Callely stated and I understand where he is coming from. The involvement of the employer groups in the determination of rates is already in the system. I am sceptical about the inclusion of an inability to pay clause, not because I do not think there are employers who are unable to pay but because the employer groups will have strengthened involvement in the determination of the rates. Attention should be given to ensuring the employer and trade union groups are involved in the closest possible way in the determination of the rates, taking economic conditions into account. The various categories have been set out in the amendment.

The Minister of State will have to make a strong case to me in favour of the inclusion of an extra layer of inability to pay in addition to that strengthening of the involvement of the employers and trade unions in determining the rate. I know it exists in other legislation but in this situation, where we are discussing a genuine engagement of the two sides in the determination of the rates, there is less of a case for an inability to pay clause. However, I will not close my mind to it. I will see what the Minister of State brings forward by way of an amendment. In general terms, I remind everyone that what we are dealing with is not just numbers, statistics and labour costs in the broad sense of what the term means but individuals who seek to make a decent living for themselves and their families. More often than not, in the particular context we are dealing with here, we are discussing low-paid employees.