Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

It is interesting to debate this amendment but the Minister's response to the earlier amendment in which she clarified the sunset clause is, in one sense, possibly the best guarantee the proposers of the amendment have that the matter is up for review. On the broader scale, the Bill seeks to give an incentive to employment and employers. We have to approach it from the perspective that the country needs more, not fewer, employers, more, not less, employment, and more, not fewer, incentives. This is modest legislation and a modest concession at a time when virtually every employer in the country is under extraordinary pressure. We should also take account of the countries against which our employers are competing worldwide and the advance of industrial development in the Far East, especially China and Vietnam. While such countries might fly under a different ideological flag, rampant capitalism means there is virtually no regulation, no rights for workers and exceptionally cheap costs of production. Our industry and employers are competing against these, making life difficult for the former.

We have enough restriction and monitoring of employers, although I must concede that there will always be a few bad apples in every walk of life. The sunset clause, as the Minister calls it, at the end of 2013 will give us the best guarantee possible. The legislation's message must be one of generosity and support from the House and the Government for employers who want to create and maintain employment.

We are bound by red tape, bureaucracy and restrictions. How many of the small industrialists and employers we meet from time to time tell us that, apart from the difficulty in obtaining finance, their greatest difficulties are bureaucracy, account keeping, returns and so on? We must make every possible effort to make it easier rather than more difficult for employers, in particular small employers, to create and maintain jobs.

The Minister's approach is fair and balanced. We do not want the legislation to be a charter for wage reductions. As the mover of the amendment rightly stated, the more money we keep in the economy, the better and the more money we remove from it, the worse. By redressing the minimum wage cut, the Government is trying to keep money in people's pockets, but we must try to strike a balance. In these difficult times, the legislation gets the balance as correct as we could have hoped.