Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

As a Corkman, I am looking forward to the game against Wexford. No one should pre-empt the outcome of that match.

While I accept the points Senators have made, the bottom line is that the Bills introduced by Sinn Féin and the Fianna Fáil Party were not sufficiently comprehensive to address the issues being addressed in this legislation. They were too weak to provide the robust and comprehensive response required by the High Court ruling. Provisions are needed that will withstand a future challenge. That addresses two of the points.

I do not believe we should forget the fact that Sinn Féin voted against the reversal of the reduction in the minimum wage when we sought to restore it to €8.65 from €7.65. While I say this respectfully, I do not think any of us, particularly a Labour Party Minister, will take lectures in regard to the rights of low-paid workers. I know there was no lecture, but we should give the lie to the impression there is only one party in this House that has concern - a new-found, affected concern - for the rights of low-paid workers. Sinn Féin is being a little disingenuous in that regard.

With regard to Senator Barrett's point, if we roll back the machinery that has existed for a considerable period, I contend we are then in danger of effecting a regressive regime vis-À-vis the relationship between worker and employee. I believe the State has a role to play in industrial relations. I take the point that one can have a minimum wage and leave it at that, and the market can determine anything thereafter. What we have in this country, which Senator Landy has espoused, is a system in which there is a balance between the two sides. For certain types of work, there is a market and one can command a certain price but, also, the State has a machinery through the Labour Relations Commission to allow for robust protection of workers where they feel they have been maligned in any way. That is the system that exists, arguably, Europe-wide. We should be looking towards countries such as Germany in terms of the models that exist.

There is a wider philosophical debate in the point made by Senator Barrett. There was a specific question in regard to the workplace relations Bill, and I can ask the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to speak on that point when he comes to the House on Report Stage. What we are trying to do here is to respond responsibly to the result of the High Court. We want to ensure we do not throw the baby out with the bath water, so that we still have a system that ensures the rights of low-paid workers, in which there is redress and recourse for workers where there is a slight or perceived slight. We also want to ensure there is sufficient flexibility in the system and a statutory code in place to ensure both sides can at least come to the table to hammer out some sort of agreement, and do so through a process of consensus. There is nothing wrong with this. I believe it is a sensible solution, which is what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.