Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the fact that the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 has eventually reached the floor of the Dáil, as it had a considerable length of time in gestation. We now have an opportunity to allow for a comprehensive debate on these important issues. The Bill is being introduced in different circumstances from that in which it was negotiated with the trade union movement and social partners.

The Bill is designed to give effect to commitments set out in the social partnership agreement Towards 2016 and considerably strengthen the law and enforcement effort to ensure employee statutory entitlements and protections would apply and are honoured. Deputy Varadkar has indicated he is opposed some aspects of the Bill and some of it clearly needs amendment. I interpreted some of Deputy Varadkar's views as being opposed to the concept of rights. One cannot blind oneself to the fact that even gathering information can be very problematic in the context of employers. I have experience of trying to get a P45 from an employer for an employee. This is a statutory document without which rights to jobseeker's or other benefits cannot be determined. Nevertheless, employers can sit on their hands and not furnish such documents. That is a simple matter but it involves a statutory document to which the employee is duly entitled.

We cannot blind ourselves to these realities. I am against the strangulation of small business through bureaucracy and I support efforts against this — I am on the record of the Dáil in this respect — but I cannot in conscience allow an unscrupulous employer to do what they wish with an employee. It is like the old master-servant relationship, where there is no control on how far a person can be pushed. In that situation there would have been no regulation determining the time worked and people would hardly have time for lunch break before being called into service. They would be kept working until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. without any regard to overtime. These rights were hard fought for by union members and some of our forefathers. I want to see them protected rather than lost.

For the employer who adheres to regulations there is nothing to fear. The Minister of State present is responsible for labour and he is quite capable. I do not say this condescendingly. Setting up NERA as a separate body must be re-examined. The old Department of Labour has enough expertise within it to deal with those issues, receive complaints and pursue them and ensure rights are enforced. These are rights that people are entitled to and obligations should be fulfilled in that regard. We do not need another quango to achieve that, which will have a structure of chief executive, deputy chief executive, a plethora of advisers, advisory boards, etc. This is where I have a problem as in the current climate we must cut down on these.

See this speech in context