Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have no issue with that if commensurate resources are provided to allow them to do their job.

Matters of redress for contraventions under section 12 must go to the rights commissioners. What does this mean? There are pages on end. I know of cases that went to the Labour Court for supplementary provisions and the Circuit Court enforced the decisions, but when the sheriff arrived, the employer had disappeared and the person who took the case was left swinging. People cannot get their P45s. As the Minister is responsible for the public service, it is important that he be aware of this situation. In Laois and Kildare, the waiting list for a hearing with a rights commissioner can be as long as two years. I have submitted parliamentary questions to establish waiting times, but I have been told that they cannot really be established. For example, ten cases could be cleared when hearings are held in a hotel and that county might be okay for another year or two.

I have encountered cases in which, just a day before a hearing by a rights commissioner into a person's dismissal, the employer telephoned to say that he or she was abroad, leading to the appointment being postponed for nine or ten months. I know of a case in which a rights commissioner could not adjudicate because a person was unable to prove to a mortgage provider's satisfaction that he or she had been dismissed. The person had been paying mortgage protection, which provided cover in the case of loss of employment. As the person could not get an appointment with a rights commissioner and the employer gave him or her the two fingers, the person could not get independent evidence of being out of work even two years later. In the meantime, the person was unable to draw down mortgage protection insurance to cover loss of employment because that loss could not be proven. The bank told the person to sell the house due to a lack of income from work or mortgage protection insurance. The rights commissioners service stated that it would take two years to adjudicate on the case.

The person was told to sell his or her home. All of this happened because he or she was unable to get an oral hearing with a rights commissioner. I know this is not the subject of the Bill before the committee. It is useful for the Minister, who is responsible for the public service, to hear about the actual knock-on consequences of what is happening. People are losing their houses because they cannot get appointments with public bodies to prove their cases. I will put that to the Minister, for what it is worth, and ask him to think about it. The Minister should not waste our time by talking about amalgamating bodies if he does not have the budget for it. These measures must work for the people.