Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

affirms that, as economic conditions continue to improve, it will stand up for working people and ensure that employees secure a fair share of growing national prosperity;

accordingly calls for a programme of incremental increases to the national minimum wage until it is pegged at 60% of median earnings, and for a living wage of €11.50 per hour to be adopted throughout the public sector;

believes that, alongside tackling low pay, we must address root causes of insecurity at work, commit to further protections for vulnerable workers in precarious employment and bring an end to exploitative employment contracts that foster increased casualisation of workers;

calls therefore on the Government to prepare and introduce a legislative package that will protect and enhance workers’ rights by:- ending the abuse of "if and when" contracts;

- combating bogus self-employment;

- ensuring freelance workers have the right to collectively bargain;

- extending the transfer of undertakings regulations (TUPE) to workers in services such as catering and security;

- protecting workers in "informal" insolvencies and collective redundancies;

- providing statutory redress for the victims of workplace bullying;

- promoting employment standards and the living wage in public procurement; and

- preventing unilateral reductions in pay;notes in particular the University of Limerick report to the Government, Study on the Prevalence of Zero Hours Contracts among Irish Employers and their Impact on Employees, and, commissioned following the outrageous treatment of Clerys workers in June 2015, the Cahill-Duffy Expert Examination and Review of Laws on the Protection of Employee Interests When Assets are Separated from the Operating Entity; and

commends the recommendations set out in both these reports and calls on the Government as an urgent priority to prepare legislation for their implementation.

I wish to share time with Deputies Jan O'Sullivan, Brendan Ryan and Willie Penrose.

Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is Labour's first Private Members' time in the new Dáil and we had no difficulty in choosing the issue we want to prioritise. The previous Government was devoted to cleaning up the economic mess. Now, Ireland is in a strong position to grow again. My party's priorities are all about making sure the benefits of strong growth are fairly shared and about working to improve the quality of life for working people. For us, getting the economy back on track was not an end in itself, it was a means to getting people back to work and getting pay back into their pockets. Who else in government would have ensured that Ireland, uniquely, would have delivered two rises in the minimum wage against the backdrop of the worst economic recession in our history? As the economy continues to recover and unemployment continues to fall, we want to see the benefits of recovery translated into better working conditions and improved pay, particularly for low-paid workers.

Of course, the world of work is changing fast. Workers have adapted to more flexible terms and conditions but, in all this change, we need still to protect the basic requirement of decent standards for working people. Work is not just an input into production, it is about human dignity and respect. For some people, the needs of the economy require labour to become commoditised. We reject the forced casualisation of jobs. We reject a future that sees workers become trapped in job and income insecurity or in a succession of short-term, low quality jobs, with no access to adequate social protection. In particular, there are too many women now working in jobs that are poorly paid, insecure and outside or at the very edge of our employment protection laws.

I and my party have no interest in the notion of "jobs at any price" or in the spread of casual labour at the lowest wages. This Government and Dáil must not preside over an economic recovery model that is fuelled by a ruthless race to the bottom or the sacrifice of employment rights that have been hard won and that are the mark of decency and a progressive society. What people want, and are entitled to, are sustainable, secure and reasonably well-paid jobs. Therefore, what we have outlined in the motion is a programme to tackle abusive terms and conditions of employment, such as low pay, insecure hours and enforced and bogus self-employment.

We are seeking to continue with the work we started in government. We installed a Labour Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Ged Nash, now a Senator, whose role was to insist that this country needs not just more jobs but quality jobs. During his period with responsibility for labour affairs, he drove the Labour Party agenda of making work pay, enhancing dignity at work and reducing inequality. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, why we brought in new industrial relations laws to rebalance the interests of workers and employers and why we turned public attention to the abusive relationship that surrounds the casualisation of work.

Let us be clear about this. We are not a nation of Luddites. We have a small, open economy and we respond to the needs of the global marketplace. We recognise there are sectors in the economy that place a premium on flexibility in the workplace. However, for us in the Labour Party, the basic requirements for a decent working life must be maintained. We want the right balance between enterprise's need for flexibility and a worker's right to job security - to a basic level of predictability in the terms and conditions of work.

There is a growing number of people in precarious employment, that is, non-standard employment that is poorly paid, insecure or completely outside the employment protection laws. Precarious employment is not gender neutral: women are invariably over-represented in this type of work. In government, we highlighted several of these issues. First, we commissioned research and recommendations on zero and low hours which show we have a serious and growing problem. People working under these contracts are being told, in effect, they can work on a casual basis. For these workers, hours at work and payslips can vary dramatically, with no guarantee of any work at all from week to week. These workers do not know from one week to the other what they are to be paid or how they will face consistent bills. Erratic pay produces massive insecurity and is entirely destructive of any attempt to plan finances and plan a future for workers and their families. These are frankly perverse arrangements aimed at downgrading the status of employment. Workers are entitled to basic security in their employment in order to plan lives for themselves and their families.

We believe this Dáil must legislate to bring these abuses to an end. However, dealing with a phenomenon of this scale - protecting workers against the casualisation of jobs - will require more than just one quick-fix legislative amendment. It needs detailed collective consideration and the agreement of this House.

Low pay must continue to be high on our agenda. The minimum wage is but a starting point and we want to go further. The minimum wage is our statutory floor, whereas the living wage is different. It recognises there are sectors in the economy in danger of becoming addicted to low pay and there are many employers who can afford to but refuse to pay more than the statutory minimum. The living wage is an independently assessed and agreed measure of the income necessary to meet basic needs, such as housing, food, utilities, clothing, transport, health care, child care and recreation. From the Government's viewpoint, the living wage boosts taxes, reduces the welfare spend and allows for investment in essential public services.

I accept that progress on this will have to be incremental and that it cannot be done at the stroke of a pen. In government, the then Minister of State and now Member of the Upper House, Ged Nash, took the first steps to put this on the public agenda at a forum for employers, unions and civil society. The Dáil needs to go further. We need to look perhaps at the UK experience and at the benefits provided for society, for the economy and for businesses there. I believe we can ensure that the State and all State agencies will become living wage employers and that we should impose a living wage condition on public procurement contracts. I also believe that, in the lifetime of this Government, increases in the national minimum wage should be continued until it reaches two thirds of median income. It is high time we set about legislating for common and comprehensive definitions of employment and self-employment so there will be one definition for tax, social welfare and employment protection purposes. We need to crack down on bogus self-employment practices that exploit workers and leave them without legal protection.

There was, in truth, only so much that we could do during what was a short period in office. The then Minister of State, Senator Nash, delivered on the recommendations of Low Pay Commission and the national minimum wage, and he produced collective bargaining legislation and laws on registered employment agreements, sectoral employment orders and the re-establishment of the joint labour committees. However, like any busy Minister, he left some work undone. Many of the issues that need to be addressed now are set out in the motion which we have put before the House.

We do not want the foot to be taken off the accelerator with regard to these important objectives. That is why we wrote last week to all parties and groups in this House, looking for consensus on these matters. When we drafted the motion, we hoped to attract support from wide a range of groups and parties - in fact, everybody with a progressive view of work. When we wrote to all the parties, Sinn Féin - typically, immediately and out of hand - rejected any effort at co-operation with us. That is not too surprising. Sinn Féin is a party of professional contrarians, opposed to everything and anything, including the Opposition in this House. When an agreed and progressive road forward is clearly signposted, they go yomping off alone into the wilderness. It turns out that those in the Anti-Austerity Alliance are exactly the same, except they cannot even dissent by consensus with Sinn Féin and have made their own separate amendment.

The position of these two parties on our motion betrays not just their churlishness but their ignorance about the issues. It passes belief that any party which seeks to support Irish workers could know so little about the current industrial relations landscape. Sinn Féin and AAA-PBP state we in the Labour Party did nothing to protect the rights of Dunnes Stores workers and that we failed to provide specific or adequate legislation. Do they not know that this very week the Labour Court is hearing the claim against Dunnes Stores brought by Mandate, or that the claim has been brought under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act that was introduced last year by the then Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash? The Dunnes Stores dispute will be one of the first hearings under the new legislation.

I am entirely in sympathy with Mandate in its struggle against the stubborn refusal of Dunnes Stores management to provide its workers with some certainty on hours and earnings. The refusal of management to sit down and negotiate with the workers through their union is nothing short of a national disgrace. The workers have shown real courage and conviction in pursuing their case and I and the Labour Party fully support them. I and my party did not just mouth off about this issue. We are not content with simply carping and whinging. We challenged and changed the law and we put the workers on a proper footing. The new Act allows the Labour Court to intervene, even when employers do not turn up, and it allows the Labour Court to issue binding determinations on pay and conditions that are enforceable in the Circuit Court. The Labour Court can now look to comparators, both unionised and non-unionised, and it can see what collective agreements have been established as the norm for the sector. John Douglas and his union welcomed the Act. They are prepared to engage with the legislation and advance their workers. In the same way, Mandate has also welcomed our investigation into zero and low-hour contracts. This is real political leadership and engagement and real co-operation with the labour movement in all its branches. It is the way real progress is made. It is the way the Labour Party operates.

As I stated on the day I became leader, the Labour Party does not do theatrics. We offer real change and real solutions to people's dilemmas. Sinn Féin and the Trotskyists, on the other hand, have a critique but no solution. Quite frankly, they are out of their depth when it comes to genuine industrial relations issues.

We are almost at the first anniversary of the Clerys liquidation. That liquidation was engineered so as to ensure the Clerys building was separated from the employees and staff. I welcome to the Gallery some of the Clerys workers to view the debate. The actions taken by the company amounted, I believe, to an effort to subvert both company and employment protection law. We need to emphasise that the workers are not out of pocket as regards statutory entitlements. The State became obliged to pay all the sums that were due to the company's employees. It is the taxpayer that bears this multi-million euro loss.

I hope the Minister, in replying to the motion, will be able to give us an update and to spell out in clear terms the current position on the various initiatives taken by the former Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, under the previous administration. He published a report which outlined Companies Act provisions enabling the courts to ensure that all assets that ought to be available to the creditors can be clawed back for their benefit. The as yet untested section 599 of the Companies Act featured in this analysis. The report pointed out that the Minister for Social Protection had standing as a preferred creditor in the winding up, and that this remedy was potentially available on behalf of the workers who are out of pocket. I understand the Attorney General has now advised on this issue and I ask the Minister to inform the House on what action is to be taken in this regard.

Last year, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the former Minister of State, Senator Nash, appointed two experts to examine legal protection for workers where operations and assets were moved to separate legal entities. Mr. Kevin Duffy, chairman of the Labour Court and Ms Nessa Cahill, a company law specialist, have published their report with recommendations and it is on the public record. Will the Minister tell us what is her attitude and that of the Government to these recommendations? When can we expect to see action on foot of the report? It would be a pity if the change in administration resulted in less impetus to drive forward these urgently needed reforms.

The priority must be to ensure that situations such as that which befell the Clerys workers can never happen again. Our motion meets this requirement and I hope it will enjoy support across the House. This would be the signal we would give to people under pressure in the workforce tonight.

I commend the motion to the House.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The motion tabled by Labour Party Members is to ensure that the rights of workers remain on the political agenda. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, and my neighbour, the Minister of State, Deputy Pat Breen, on their appointment, I strongly urge them to ensure this happens. We need to maintain the progress made by the Government of 2011 to 2016, beginning with one of its first acts, which was the restoration of the minimum wage that had been axed by Fianna Fáil.

Many thousands of workers in this country still struggle to pay their bills and we intend to champion their cause, as we did - particularly through the leadership of Senator Ged Nash - while in government. We make no apology for focusing on low-paid workers. They should not have to worry about an unpaid bill or the cost of food. They should have bread and roses; enough to live on and something left over for the enjoyment of life.

As Deputy Howlin has just said, more than 60% of those on the minimum wage are women. Despite the fight for equal pay for equal work, some sectors which are predominantly female in their workforce have appallingly low rates of pay. I commend the former Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, who asked the Low Pay Commission to examine and make recommendations on the low pay of women. I call on the Minister and Minister of State to ensure these recommendations, when they are devised, are implemented. The sectors involved include child care, shop work and cleaning. The two increases in minimum wage and the new employment regulation order for contract cleaners have made some welcome improvements, but we need to move to a situation where the minimum wage rises further, to reach 60% of median earnings and to where a living wage of €11.50 per hour applies throughout the public service.

Women working in child care are among those on the lowest of incomes. It is crucial for families, but also for those working in the sector, that the commitments to invest in the cost of child care are fulfilled. Quality care and education in the early years of a child's life make an enormous difference to each child's development and chances in life. Those who work in the sector are extremely dedicated but their pay is generally minimal, even if they have a third-level or post-graduate qualification. The suggestion made in the early life of the Government that tax breaks should be used to assist parents with the cost of child care would have done nothing to make child care more affordable, have better quality across the board or be better paid. I am glad the Government has given an assurance that it will not follow this course and I will continue to press for direct support to the sector instead. Continuing to increase the minimum wage will secure a share of the growing national prosperity to all workers in child care and other low-paid sectors.

I remember going to my local petrol station in the depths of winter and the two women working there had smiles on their faces because the minimum wage had just increased. These are the workers we want to support. Others we want to protect through the motion are freelance workers, those forced into bogus self-employment and those on if-and-when contracts. Dr. Michelle O'Sullivan and her team at the Kemmy Business School in the University of Limerick, UL, did a fine job in the comprehensive report they carried out on zero-hour contracts and their impact. Their recommendations are practical and fair and I support what my party leader has just said, that they must be implemented.

The same is true of the proposals in the Cahill-Duffy review carried out following the shocking overnight closure of Clerys - and I also welcome the workers to the Gallery - and the separation of assets that callously deprived workers of protection. One of those workers raised an issue with me when I spoke to her this morning, which I promised to raise this evening. A colleague of hers, having worked for decades in the retail trade in Clerys, secured a job in another store but, despite his years of experience, only on the minimum wage.

When the minimum wage is reviewed, there should be consideration of the need to recognise years of experience in setting pay rates.

We were determined to use our first Private Members' time in this Dáil to advance the rights of low-paid workers. It is an area around which we, as public representatives, should all unite. I, too, am concerned that both Sinn Féin and the AAA-PBP have decided to play politics on this issue instead of supporting the rights of workers. Again, I urge those on all sides in the House to ensure that this issue remains on the political agenda. We are very happy to have placed it there tonight and we urge other Members to support the motion.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Workers' rights are at the core of what the Labour Party stands for and what the labour movement is all about. Only this morning I met workers at Oberstown detention centre who staged a four-hour stoppage to highlight safety concerns on the campus. The fight for workers' rights goes on. While the Government is the tool by which to implement real change, we have an opportunity in this Dáil to shape change from the Opposition benches and also through co-operation and alliance.

The motion calls on the Government to prepare and introduce a legislative package that will build on what the Labour Party achieved during its membership of the previous Government in respect of strengthening workers' rights. The previous Government faced a difficult task in rescuing our economic sovereignty and steadying the ship. Despite the budgetary constraints, Labour delivered in many areas but we also admit that we were unable to deliver as much of our agenda as we would have wanted in respect of other areas. However, one area in which we unquestionably furthered a progressive agenda is that relating to workers' rights. As pointed out recently by SIPTU president Jack O'Connor, Ireland was the only country in the OECD during the global financial crisis which actually improved legislative protection for its workforce.

Without Labour in government - including the work of Eamon Gilmore on getting collective bargaining on the agenda and the work of Joan Burton and the former Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, in delivering this and many other measures to strengthen workers' rights - there would have been no progress made at all in this area. I believe that without Labour driving this agenda, the minimum wage would still be at €7.65 and the legislative architecture would be the same as when Fianna Fáil left it in 2011. Because of Labour in government, the minimum wage was increased twice. The campaigning zeal of Labour Youth ensured the concept of a living wage was placed firmly at the centre of the workers' rights agenda. We brought in new collective bargaining laws and restored registered employment agreements. Our collective bargaining legislation ensures that a mechanism for workers, aided by a trade union, can advance claims about remuneration and terms and conditions of employment and have these determined by the Labour Court based on comparisons with similar companies.

The former Labour Party Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, spearheaded the examination of the prevalence of zero-hour contracts in the Irish economy. He commissioned a comprehensive report by UL. The study examined the evidence of the prevalence of zero-hour contracts and so-called if-and-when contracts. While both involve non-guaranteed hours of work, the main difference is that workers on zero-hour contracts are obliged to make themselves available for work, while those on if-and-when contracts are not contractually required to make themselves available for work. In the four sectors examined in the study, namely, retail, hospitality, education and health, if-and-when hours and low working hours are prevalent in the accommodation, food and retail sectors and in certain occupations in education and health, such as community care work, general practice nursing, third-level lecturing and school substitution. There are significant negative impacts for workers on if-and-when hours, including unpredictability of hours, difficulties in managing work and family life, unstable income, difficulties accessing financial credit, etc. The report also suggests recommendations to tackle if-and-when contracts. We commend these recommendations to the Government and ask the Minister to pursue a strategy which will deliver on them.

When the Labour Party was in government, it prioritised workers' rights. In opposition and with this motion, we will demonstrate that we continue to hold the strengthening of workers' rights as core to that for which we stand. When this motion was circulated, Sinn Féin was very quick out of the blocks not to support it. Instead, it is advancing an amendment which is specifically designed to fail and in which it attacks the Labour Party for doing nothing when it was a involved in the previous Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sinn Féin's partisan approach to this important issue highlights that above all else it values political positioning above making a difference.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We want to make a difference, and I believe we did so when in government. The Cahill-Duffy review, which Senator Ged Nash spearheaded following the overnight shock closure of the iconic Clerys department store, is a substantial report which recommends legislative changes to ensure such callous treatment of workers cannot happen again. These laws need to be changed, and I implore this Government to implement these recommendations.

We are looking for support for this motion. We are seeking progressive, like-minded parties, groups and individuals in this Chamber to see the value in this motion and to vote for it tomorrow evening. Judging by their amendments, however, Sinn Féin and the AAA-PBP are more intent on playing the man and not the ball in this regard. So the street theatre of Opposition Private Members' business is set to go on as before.

I commend the motion to the House.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fairness and decency at work sum up the aspirations of all working people throughout the world in their working lives. This involves opportunities for work that are productive and deliver fair outcomes, security in the workplace, better prospects for personal development and social integration. In Ireland it means, among other things, paying a living wage and giving decent terms and conditions of employment to vulnerable workers. Fairness and decency at work cannot be achieved by codes of practice or whimsical employer benevolence but must be assisted by effective legislation that will right the enormous imbalance of power between employers and employees. Business models based on a race to the bottom in standards inflict damage not only on workers but also on the prospect of sustainable growth for all.

Legislating for fairness and decency will benefit society because there is an enormous connection between decent treatment and improved economic performance. Fairness and decency at work means addressing the abuse of zero-hour and low-hour contracts. It indicates a real desire to abolish bogus self-employment contracts. It entails finally confronting the scourge of workplace bullying through the enactment of effective legislation. It would mean ensuring that service workers enjoy the same protections as every other worker under the transfer of undertaking regulations. It also necessitates change in legislation to extend insolvency protection legislation to workers who are left without wages and other compensation when the employer ceases trade. Fundamentally, we need nothing less than employment rights that are fit for the 21st century to make people feel secure and productive at work. The motion before the Dáil this evening shows how we are looking to the Government to provide a fair framework of law and to promote fairness and decency in the context of employment practices. In other words, this motion is simply putting forward a workers' agenda - nothing more, nothing less.

We welcome the Clerys workers to the Gallery. We met them earlier today. Of course, we are all aware of the situation that arose in Clerys: the liquidation and the developments and how matters were resolved. The principal disquiet that arose from that issue was the fact that the insolvency was preceded by a company restructuring, which involved separation of the trading business that employed the staff from its major asset, namely, the Clerys building. When the operating company was declared insolvent and went into liquidation, the employees lost their employment without any notice - some of them learned about it on Facebook - or any consultation. They did not have payment under statutory entitlements, but this was remedied by the right to recourse to statutory entitlements through the Department of Social Protection because the State is obliged to pay all sums of money due to companies' employees. It is the Department of Social Protection that bears this cost, approximately €2.5 million. However, employees in a situation such as that faced by the Clerys workers, some of whom had 46 years' service, some of whom had decades of very sterling and worthy service to the company, were left not being able to negotiate an enhanced redundancy package going beyond the statutory minimum. They therefore lost out hugely, not just their work but also any compensation that they could claim.

An employer insolvency in a case such as this impacts on two sets of legislation. Employee protection is covered by the Redundancy Payments Acts, which provide a statutory minimum entitlement to redundancy payments. In addition, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 confers a right to payment of wages in lieu of notice. Finally, outstanding wages, holiday pay, commission and bonuses are protected by the Payment of Wages Act 1991. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the employer to make these payments. If, however, the employer has disappeared into a situation of insolvency, legislation provides for payments by the Department of Social Protection. Then there is the collective redundancy legislation. Under the Protection of Employment Acts 1977 to 2007, an employer who is contemplating a collective redundancy is obliged to enter into consultations with a view to reaching agreement with staff representatives. These consultations must take place at the earliest opportunity and at least 30 days before the notice of redundancy is given. The aim of the consultation is to consider whether there are any alternatives to the redundancies. However, certain provisions of the Act are stated not to apply to employees in a business which is being wound up, and the reason given for this approach to date is that where an insolvent firm goes into liquidation, it can no longer trade. It can no longer accrue debts as it is in no position to discharge. It would be difficult to keep staff on the books, expecting them to work merely to serve out a 30-day notice period, where the employer has no resources to pay those staff. Neither would the staff need this if it merely delays access to social welfare.

As Deputy Howlin stated earlier, there have been a number of developments in response to the issues raised at Clerys liquidation, including the report to the then Government by the former Minister of State, Senator Ged Nash, dealing with the application of the Companies Act. Section 599, which was first enacted in 1990 and re-enacted verbatim in 2014, is about bringing assets of a connected company into a liquidation on the grounds of fairness and equity. This is borrowed from New Zealand legislation. It does not apply in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia. Since 1990, it has never been invoked. This is the area that should be focused upon. It seems designed to suit the situation that has arisen in Clerys, indeed it is custom built to do so.

It is time to throw off the shackles and utilise the legislative section to pursue the issue that has arisen in Clerys. We do not know if it will be effective until it is tried. Let it be utilised and tested on this occasion to bring in assets of an associated company where there has been unfairness meted out to creditors, such as the employees. The sole object of this transaction was to leave the State carrying the can for the redundancy of the employees. It, in effect, represented an engineered bill being presented to the Department of Social Protection. If an ordinary person overdraws, over claims or makes a claim that is not justified, he or she is rightly pursued, even if it is only €200, €2,000 or whatever. We now have a chance to pursue persons for over €2.5 million. Let us try it. We are saying that Clerys was closed and the valuable assets were extracted from the company. The insolvent company was put into liquidation and sent out all the bills, such as redundancy bills, holiday pay and sick pay, directly to the Department of Social Protection. What transpired in this case will be attempted again if it escapes without question and without detailed investigation. Let us utilise existing law to see if it works and if it does not work, let us come back here - that is our job - to change it and bring forward laws that work. There should be no foot-dragging in that regard. I am sure we will get the advice of the Attorney General which the Minister is entitled to get.

I will not say too much about the authorised officer because that is before the courts to determine whether the requirements of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 were satisfied. Contravention of the Act is an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of €5,000. The issue here is there is a 12 months' time limit on prosecutions which are brought in the name of the Minister and therefore they must be brought by 11 June next.

We have expert reports in this area. The former Ministers, Deputy Richard Bruton and Senator Nash, announced a twin-track examination of protection in law for employees and unsecured creditors, particularly to ensure that limited liability and-or corporate restructuring cannot be used to avoid a company's obligation to its employees and unsecured creditors. They appointed two experts to examine the legal protection for workers, particularly where operations and assets may be moved to separate legal entities as part of a restructuring. This examination would specifically look at situations where valuable assets in a company are separated from the operating entity and how the position of employees can be better protected in such situations. Mr. Kevin Duffy, chairperson of the Labour Court, and Ms Nessa Cahill, an experienced company law specialist and barrister, were given eight weeks to examine existing legislation and also consider a new solution on how best to protect innocent workers in such cases. The then Minister's deputy requested the Company Law Review Group to examine legislation with a view to recommending ways company law could be amended to better safeguard employees and creditors.

As the Minister, Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, will be aware, Ms Cahill and Mr. Duffy have reported. Their focus was on how the interests of employees could be more effectively safeguarded where collective redundancies arise from liquidation following restructuring in which assets had been put beyond the reach of the liquidator or been transferred to a related person. Among other measures they proposed was that employees should in future have a right to consult with their employer for a minimum 30 days' period before a collective redundancy can take place, whether the employer is insolvent or not. Where a related company or person is contemplating a significant decision in regard to an asset that will lead to collective redundancies, such as refusing to renew a lease or a sale of a property, the company or person should be obliged to notify the employer who would be obliged to trigger a 30 days' consultation period with employees. Compensation for failing to respect employees' rights on 30-day consultation period should be increased from four weeks' pay to two years' pay. I refer here to section 608 of the Companies Act 2014. Where the employer transfers assets out of the business with the effect of perpetrating a fraud on employees, there should be a mechanism for recovering the assets or the proceeds of a sale.

The priority is to ensure that a situation such as Clerys would never happen again. Our commitment in the Labour Party has always been that if the law is tested and proves to be ineffective, then it must be corrected. However, the jury is still out on the view taken by Ms Cahill and Mr. Duffy that the Companies Act remedies "that are already available do not appear to be in need of amendment, but more in need of use". It is now over to the Minister.

I also want to address the issue of workers who are in formal insolvencies. I have met numerous workers who have fallen foul of this. Over the past number of years, those of companies in retail, construction and the hospitality sectors have gone through the formal insolvency process, such as receivership, liquidation, bankruptcy or some other process recognised by law and, as a consequence, employees in those companies are able to apply to the State's insolvency fund for up to eight weeks' arrears of wages, holiday pay, minimum notice and third party awards where the insolvent employer is not able to pay. I refer to the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Acts, 1984 to 2004.

However, employees in companies that fold up, as Deputy Niall Collins as a solicitor would know well, and stand static are actually prevented by law from applying to the statutory insolvency fund. Such employees cannot recover unpaid wages and other amounts due like their colleagues in employments which have taken the proper insolvency routes. They are left at a serious disadvantage. I am aware of persons who are owed €30,000 and €40,000 in this way. The fact is that employees in such circumstances are left bereft of not only their employment but also their due payments. I believe it is in breach of European law because a 2008 employers insolvency directive, in Article 2(4), specifically provides for protection of employees in insolvency situations, such as the informal ones to which I am referring, where payments have been stopped on a permanent basis. The High Court recently made reference to that, which points to an inherent unfairness in the current law in the Republic. A solution to this problem would be for the Government to amend the existing legislation in line with the directive. That was the original proposal in the 1984 Act. This could then cover what is called "informal" or deemed insolvencies where the employer has given up trading or where payments to employees have ceased for six weeks or more. At present in such circumstances all one can do is enact the regulation under existing powers pertaining in section 4(2) of the 1984 Act. An application under these regulations could then be dealt with by the Department of Social Protection which already has responsibility under the solvency payments Act and the Redundancy Payments Bill 2003. There are many issues here.

One of the issues I have been concerned about over the years is that we have no statutory redress for bullying. Everybody agrees that workplace bullying is totally unacceptable but the time has come to take the long-awaited step of incorporating appropriated redress in employment law. To date, there has been an abject failure in respect of legislative innovation in this area, and one must go to court. It is an increasing problem in the workplace and it has negative effects, both for the alleged victim of the bullying and the employer. For the alleged victim, one often finds him or her in stress and ill health. Such workers' productivity drops off and, of course, their career development stalls. For the employer, the workplace can become dysfunctional, with poor morale and, maybe, costly litigation. There is an increased level of complaints but the insufficiency of existing measures to tackle the problem is leading to great frustration for both the employer and the employee, and there is no formal channel for resolving bullying complaints. By contrast, harassment and sexual harassment claims which are clearly and narrowly defined in the Employment Equality Acts, can be processed through the Equality Tribunal and eventually the Labour Court if necessary. In contrast, the worker making a bullying complaint has no defined redress under employment law. The lack of a statutory call to action set out in the legislature has meant that the task of developing and applying an appropriate course of action has been left to the courts and to lawyers, and such a route is invariably costly, time consuming and traumatic for all of the parties.

The task force on bullying of 2006 commented adversely on the lack of formal procedures to deal with bullying and called directly for legislation to be enacted to give effect to these proposals. Legislation should define workplace bullying, give an outline of the internal procedures that need to be put in place to deal with bullying complaints, and outline the formal route for adjudication on bullying complaints which has to be legally sound and cost effective. One must have a comprehensive definition of bullying. It needs to incorporate the tenets that bullying occurs when an individual or group of individuals behaves unreasonably towards a worker or a group of workers. One has to describe the type of behaviour which is unacceptable and state that such behaviour must be deemed to create a risk to health and safety at work. Then one must set out the use of internal procedures and the third-party adjudication that, eventually, a complainant can apply to the Workplace Relations Commission, which is now the one-stop shop for formal adjudication in the matter. The director of the Workplace Relations Commission can also dismiss claims if, in his or her considered opinion, the claim is frivolous.

Regarding redress, one could give an order for a specified person to take a specified action or for compensation of up to two years' pay. Ultimately, one can appeal to the Labour Court in the manner laid out in the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Bullying is a major issue and it is surprising where it happens. In many places across the State, there are semi-State companies where it might surprise the Minister that zero-hour contracts and casualisation of employment is being applied. It must stop. Over the coming weeks, I intend to find out how many State or semi-State companies are engaged in this practice. It would be a very bad example if any State or semi-State company were engaged in any such practice. We want to stamp it out. We have the report from Limerick, which we should act on and implement.

These are pointers given in a constructive fashion by the Labour Party. The Minister will find us a constructive party. We are unashamedly returning to 1912 and 1913 to pursue a workers' agenda. Woe to the begrudgers.

Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“supports a social economy model to deliver a strong economy and a fair society;

welcomes the commitment of Government to:— respond to any recommendations of the Low Pay Commission as part of Budget 2017 to increase the statutory minimum wage;

— fully implement the Lansdowne Road Agreement in accordance with the timelines agreed and recognise that the recruitment issues in the public service must be addressed as part of this Agreement;

— establish a Public Service Pay Commission to examine pay levels across the public service, including entry levels of pay;

— support the gradual, negotiated repeal of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts having due regard to the priority to improve public services and in recognition of the essential role played by public servants;

— review the definition and application of the Living Wage within the public service with a view to ensuring balanced and progressive restoration of pay and encourage employers across the economy, on a voluntary basis, to adopt the Living Wage;

— tackle the problems caused by the increased casualisation of work that prevents workers from being able to save or have any job security;

— respect the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court as the proper forum for state intervention in industrial relation disputes and ensure that both bodies are supported and adequately resourced to fulfil their roles;

— respond to the study conducted by the University of Limerick on the prevalence of zero hours contracts following the recent public consultation process; and

— respond to the appalling manner in which employees were made redundant without notice on the same day that the Clerys operating company was sold and then put in to liquidation and notes that:

— the commissioning of Nessa Cahill and Kevin Duffy to conduct an expert examination of legal protections for workers with a particular focus on ways of ensuring limited liability and corporate restructuring are not used to avoid a company’s obligations to its employees;

— in parallel with, but separate to the work of Nessa Cahill and Kevin Duffy, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation requested the Company Law Review Group (CLRG) to review company law with a view to recommending ways company law could be potentially amended to ensure better safeguards for employees and unsecured creditors; and

— authorised officers of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation have sought information from a number of parties in relation to the collective redundancies that took place on 12th June, 2015, pursuant to the appointment of a provisional liquidator to OCS Operations Limited and the authorised officers’ work is ongoing.”

I am pleased the House is having this debate. The Government will support a social economy model to deliver a strong economy and a fair society. Many positive actions have been taken in the recent past. Very progressive proposals are included in the new programme for partnership Government. These proposals will enhance the well-being of our people and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

It is important to acknowledge the very significant progress in the past five years. We have seen sustained job creation and decreasing unemployment. We have maintained our focus and drive towards full employment. It is also important to take stock of the progress made in recent years in improving employment rights. We have also reformed the industrial relations institutions of the State and the industrial relations legislation used by workers and employers. First, I would like to stress the improvements in employment and unemployment.

Full employment is what will make all our other plans possible, including better services, higher living standards and, ultimately, better lives for people living in Ireland. The country has witnessed a significant shift in the economy during recent years. The policies pursued are paying dividends in terms of rebuilding the economy and society. Since 2012, the Action Plan for Jobs has delivered measures agreed by the Government to promote job opportunities and employment growth in all parts of the country. Recent CSO figures show 155,000 more people are at work. Unemployment is down to 7.8% from a high of 15.1% in February 2012. Employment continues to grow strongly and 47,600 additional jobs were created in the past year, most of which are full-time. Casual and part-time work decreased by 8.3%. Part-time underemployment has also fallen year on year, from 114,800 in the first quarter of 2015 to 99,100 in the first quarter of 2016. It is down from more than 150,000 in 2012.

Employment growth is spread across economic sectors and the regions. Employment has grown in 12 out of the 14 economic sectors in the year to the first quarter of 2016. The unemployment rate fell in all eight regions in the year to the first quarter of 2016. These are very encouraging figures and trends. They show there is strong and continued employment growth across the economy and the regions. My priority in government is to ensure these positive trends continue. The Government will use the benefits of a strong economy to ensure we have a fair society.

I acknowledge the progress made in recent years in improving employment rights to protect workers, especially the most vulnerable workers in our society. The Low Pay Commission was set up on a statutory basis in July 2015. The commission’s job is to examine and make recommendations each year on the national minimum wage. The commission is set up to ensure increases over time in the national minimum wage are sustainable and fair. It takes account of changes in earnings, productivity, competitiveness and the likely impact any change will have on employment and unemployment levels.

The national minimum wage increased to €9.15 per hour on 1 January this year following Government acceptance of the Low Pay Commission recommendation to increase the rate from €8.65 per hour. The previous Government's reversal of the cut in the national minimum wage in July 2011 and increase to €9.15 ensures that work pays. The statutory minimum wage is a statement of core values. It provides a pay threshold below which society agrees workers' wages should not fall. The next report of the Low Pay Commission regarding the national minimum wage is due on 19 July. I look forward to responding to any recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to increase the national minimum wage as part of the 2017 budget.

As well as making recommendations on the national minimum wage, the commission has also been asked to examine the appropriateness of the lower sub-minima rates. The report is due by the end of October 2016. The commission has also been asked to examine why almost 65% of those on the minimum wage are women. This report is also due by the end of October 2016.

I will highlight other major reforms in employment rights. We have seen the most significant reform in the history of the State of the workplace relations system used to vindicate employees' rights. The Workplace Relations Commission and a stronger Labour Court are in place. We have ensured the wages and conditions of agency workers were brought into line with their full-time counterparts. We have re-established the joint labour committee and registered employment agreement wage setting system, which had been found to be unconstitutional. Employees' terms and conditions can be assessed by the Labour Court if collective bargaining does not lake place.

In workplace relations reforms, five bodies were merged into two, namely, the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court. This change provides a better service at less cost to employees and employers. It represents the most significant reform of the State’s employment rights and industrial relations machinery in 70 years. Welcome reforms were made to our collective bargaining laws through the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015, which was commenced in August last year. The legislation provides a clear and balanced mechanism by which the fairness of the total employment conditions of workers can be assessed by the Labour Court if collective bargaining does not take place. The changes bring clarity and certainty for employers in terms of managing their workplaces in this respect. It also provides strong protections for workers against dismissal or victimisation where they invoke the provisions of the Acts.

Also in 2015 the statutory code of practice on victimisation was strengthened. The stronger code explicitly provides that inducement of workers to relinquish or forego trade union representation is prohibited. This applies in the same way as victimisation of workers for availing of trade union representation is prohibited.

There have been other developments in recent years also regarding wage setting mechanisms. In 2012 new legislation re-established the framework within which employers and employee representatives could work through the joint labour committee system. They can come together voluntarily and negotiate terms and conditions of workers in their respective sector. If their proposals are adopted by the Labour Court the Minister can make an order giving effect to such proposals. Two such orders were signed on 1 October last for the security and contract cleaning sectors. In addition, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 provides for a revised legislative framework to replace the registered employment agreement framework. This had been deemed invalid by the Supreme Court in 2013. The legislation sets out a replacement framework for registered employment agreements in individual enterprises. It also sets a new mechanism whereby pay and pension and sick pay provisions in a particular sector can be established, agreed and enforced by a sectoral employment order.

Ireland's comprehensive suite of employment rights legislation sets out protections for all workers. This includes special protections for those who work on a part-time basis or on a temporary basis. For example, a part-time employee cannot be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time employee. All employee protection legislation applies to a part-time employee in the same manner as it already applies to a full-time employee. Fixed-term workers may not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent workers. All temporary agency workers have a right to equal treatment with regular workers from their first day at work.

I make the point that throughout the crisis the Government was committed to maintaining employment rights and particularly those protecting the most vulnerable workers in our society. If anything, where changes were made or new legislation introduced, they have improved protections. Another recent example was to provide for the accrual of annual leave while absent from work on sick leave. This change strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of vulnerable workers who are off work due to illness and the impact on business.

Looking forward, I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government to tackle the problems caused by the increased casualisation of work and to strengthen regulation of precarious work. To this end I am committed to considering an appropriate policy response to the report of the University of Limerick, UL, of its study of zero hour contracts and low hour contracts in the Irish economy. All Deputies will be aware that UL was appointed in February 2015 to study the prevalence of zero hour contracts and low hour contracts. Its study was published in 2015. It found that zero hour contracts are not extensively used in Ireland. However, it found that low working hours can arise in different forms in employment contracts. These can be regular part-time contracts with fixed hours. They can also be a contract with "if and when" hours only or a hybrid of the two. If and when contracts are contracts where workers are not contractually required to make themselves available for work.

The UL report made a range of recommendations relating to contracts, hours of work and notice, minimum hours, how contracted hours should be determined, collective agreements, data gathering and wider contextual issues. It is important to point out that the UL study was an independent study and the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made in it are those of UL. Therefore, it was essential to seek the views of stakeholders.

To this end, my Department sought submissions from interested parties by way of a public consultation. A large number of submissions were received by 4 January 2016, the closing date for receipt of such submissions. The responses contain a variety of views both for and against the findings and recommendations as made by UL. These responses require, and are currently being given, careful consideration by my Department. The study and the responses to it will be considered by Government with a view to agreeing the actions that should be taken.

I want to welcome here tonight the Clerys workers who were treated so despicably. The closure of Clerys department store and the manner in which its workers lost their jobs was totally unacceptable and that should never happen again. It raised questions as to how the relevant provisions of employment law and company law could be exploited to produce an outcome never intended by the respective codes of law.

Ms Nessa Cahill, a company law specialist, and Mr. Kevin Duffy, chairman of the Labour Court, were asked to conduct an expert examination. They examined the legal protections for workers with a particular focus on ways of ensuring limited liability and corporate restructuring are not used to avoid a company's obligations to its employees. The examination looked specifically at situations where assets of significant value are separated from the operating entity which is the employer. It looked at how the position of employees can be better protected in such situations. In parallel with the work of Ms Nessa Cahill and Mr. Kevin Duffy, my predecessor requested the Company Law Review Group, CLRG, to review company law. This was with a view to recommending ways company law could be potentially amended to ensure better safeguards for employees and unsecured creditors. The CLRG has commenced its work in this regard.

Ms Nessa Cahill and Mr. Kevin Duffy submitted their report in March. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the relevant provisions of employment law and company law. It makes a number of proposals for reform of the law, which are primarily concerned with amendments to employment law. The report was brought to Government and published on 26 April. My priority now is to get considered responses to the report from interested parties. I will then bring forward a response to the report for consideration by Government. Stakeholder views will be important in assessing how the suggested reforms could operate in practice and in identifying any unintended consequences.

I am pleased to say that yesterday I launched the public consultation on the experts' report, with a closing date of 17 June. I would welcome submissions from all interested parties, including members of the Oireachtas. Separately, my authorised officers have sought information from a number of parties regarding the collective redundancies that took place at Clerys and that work is ongoing.

In my new role I am happy to encourage employers across the economy to adopt, on a voluntary basis, the living wage. This concept is grounded in the idea that a person's wage should be sufficient to maintain a safe, decent standard of living but is quite separate from the national minimum wage. The living wage is a voluntary societal initiative centred on the social, business and economic case to ensure that, wherever it can be afforded, employers will pay a rate of pay that provides an income that is sufficient to meet an individual's basic needs.

I want to assure the House of the Government's commitment to continue the significant progress made in recent years in improving the protection of workers' rights, particularly the most vulnerable workers. In this respect I look forward to working in a positive and constructive manner with colleagues across all sides of the House.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment the Labour Part on tabling the motion. For a reason that I will explain, I am delighted that Deputy Jan O'Sullivan is present. I knew Mr. Frank Prendergast well. He was a Labour Party Deputy from the same constituency as her and his constant theme was that the gap between the bottom and the top had widened inexorably over time, particularly through percentage increases. I took what he said seriously and the evidence would support him. This is bad for societal solidarity.

I realise the challenges. We live in an international world and there are international norms with which I do not agree, but they influence what happens on this island. The wider the gap between the very wealthy and the very poor, the more inexorable it becomes and the greater the disconnect in society. Therefore, this is a serious issue to be addressed and it must be examined in great detail. As a people, we must decide whether it is in anyone's interest to have an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor. I remember asking someone who had come from what would today be considered a poor rural background and grown up on a small farm whether they had felt poor when young. I received an interesting answer: "No. Is mar a chéile muid uilig. We were all the same." Everyone was in the same boat; therefore, poverty was shared by the whole community. Unlike some places we might have in mind, for example, South America, people living in great poverty were not cheek by jowl with the wealthy. Frighteningly, though, it appears from the statistics that that is where we have moved during the years. I favour a high minimum wage to resolve this issue. Unfortunately, there is a danger that people might then believe the living or minimum wage should be universal rather than the floor below which one could not legally go.

What is happening at Tesco is scary. Workers are being told that their contracts will be ripped up and that they must regress. The zero-hour, if-and-when contracts seem to be unfair. When the complexity of an uncertain working arrangement is matched against the reality of the social welfare system, the situation becomes much worse.

While I hope the motion will be carried, we will not be able to resolve this issue in an hour and a half. In the previous Dáil we referred the oil and gas exploration issue to a committee. Everyone sat around the table and we arrived at a report what was agreed to unanimously. We did some serious work that influenced our oil terms. The issue before us today should be referred to a committee and the Oireachtas must examine all of its aspects. Our society must decide what shape it will take. We must decide whether it will be the law of the jungle or whether we will, as far as we can with what our society can control, no longer tolerate the ever-widening gap between the very rich and the very poor.

For many years I was de factoan employer because I was the manager of a co-op. I was in charge on a day-to-day basis, although I was subject to a local committee that was the ultimate owner alongside the shareholders. Whenever the union approached me, I put all of our wages, including mine, on the table. If I was claiming that the wages sought were not affordable when times were tight, it was the workers' right to know what everyone was earning, including the person on the largest salary. If a sacrifice was being sought, it had to be seen that an equal sacrifice was being made by everyone. In a company such a Tesco, however, the people at the top are earning megabucks, yet there is constant pressure downwards on the wages of ordinary people at the bottom.

When this debate ends, I hope we will not say we have had our big day in the sun in raising the issue before parking it quietly. It is too big for that. I hope this debate will encourage people to see that important detailed work needs to be done, with a great deal of background research, in order that the Oireachtas might reach a coherent view on workers' rights and relative salaries in our society. If we were to do this, we would do justice a service.

A very valid point was made on the radio some days ago that in many cases, the State has to supplement the wages of low-paid workers through the family income supplement, thus putting a burden on the taxpayer that the employer should bear.

Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Ministers who are present, Deputies Pat Breen and Mary Mitchell O'Connor, on their appointments. It is a great honour for them and I do not doubt their commitment in any way.

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points on this motion. I thank the Labour Party for using its Private Members' time to bring this issue forward. We would all aspire to a living wage of €11.50. Indeed, we would all aspire to a living wage approaching €14, as suggested in amendments. In ideal circumstances, we would all like to see that. The commitment to move towards €11.50 is one I would certainly support. A year or two ago, SIPTU or congress first started the campaign to get many of us in these Houses to sign up to the commitment. It is honourable given the costs and challenges facing many households throughout the country. We need to do this. We need to be careful to have the correct balance so we do not affect competitiveness adversely.

The Minister of State said the fragile recovery extends across very many sectors and regions but that is not true of the north west, from where I come. This region includes Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal and Cavan. In that part of the country, there are in the region of 200 empty retail shops, pubs, supermarkets, forecourts, factories and other business premises. The IDA budget predominantly focuses on the east coast or a ring very close to the broader east coast region. There is a huge challenge in this area. For the many unemployed people in Sligo, Cavan, Leitrim, Donegal and other counties next to the western seaboard, having a job for 39 hours per week that pays €350, €360 or €370 is a lot better than having a job paying €188 per week or, if one is below a certain age, even less. That is not to say we should not aspire to the figures I have mentioned.

Having been a spectator of the process and practice of politics over the years and having been something of a participant as a Member of the Seanad over 14 years, I believe the evidence is clear that the money follows the population, which is a reasonable formula. It also follows senior Ministers. In the north west, we have neither a senior Minister nor a population. Nevertheless, there are citizens there who deserve equal treatment and somewhat equal access to services. They certainly need some hope in the context of the strategic vision of the Government or Oireachtas to enable their region not only to look after itself but also to contribute to the national effort in a more meaningful way. That would certainly be possible if we were prepared to begin to resource the region's strengths and to put a strategy in place that would facilitate entrepreneurs in order to seek to fill the 200 various empty business premises throughout the region. We could rebalance the IDA budget.

I have concerns over aspects of what former Secretary General of the Department of Finance, Mr. John Moran, said in a recent interview. He referred to our not being able to afford rural or regional Ireland and that we need to centralise and resource the centres in a way that could cater for others. Aspects of what he said are true but the general theme of what he said is false and certainly not in keeping with the aspiration of providing for the nation as a whole. If the greater Manchester area debate takes over the strategic vision of whatever Government we have, we will lose as a nation. If we are to take a purely economic view of the provision of services to less populated parts of the country, of course people will move. If one decides to turn off water at Mullingar, the people of Sligo and Donegal will have to go there for water. If we decide to stop providing broadband for those areas, nothing is surer than that businesses will not locate there. If we refuse to provide a motorway to the north west, as we have done for many years and with no existing plans to build one, it impedes access and the somewhat futile efforts of the IDA staff in the region, who, as we know, are the best in the world at what they do. However, we are falling down as an Oireachtas in examining these regions strategically to ask how we can empower them to perform to their potential and not just regard them as a pain in the national side.

Yesterday the IMD, the international centre for competitiveness, announced its results for the year. Ireland has recovered greatly, rising from 16th place last year, or certainly in recent years, to seventh. While I agree with the intentions of this motion and aspire to paying people the maximum we can, we cannot be stupid about it either. We must be thoughtful and state in policy that we want those employers who can afford it and who have turnovers and profit that support this objective to embrace it and give employees the supports they require. However, we must also acknowledge the fact that many are underperforming, not because of a lack of will to perform but because we are not providing them with the necessary tools to do so. Over the years, all Governments, including those of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Independents, considered the regions to be a pain in the national side and they threw an odd bone of placation to keep them quiet. We need to be much more strategic.

The motion does not go this far but I would abolish zero-hour contracts and if-and-when contracts. They are a tool to be abused more so than to facilitate. I have concerns about what we will do with them.