Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)

Exactly. The Labour Party brought forward legislation to try to bring Ireland into compliance with the temporary agency workers directive. I accept that matters in respect of this may be ongoing. However, I must draw attention to the absence of any provision in the definition of "employer" in the context of who NERA will treat as the employer of an agency worker. My party wants the Bill to be amended in this regard in order that sufficient cover will be provided.

The definition relating to employment legislation means that only the legislation listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill will apply. However, certain items of legislation are missing from that Schedule. In that context, the Adoptive Leave Acts 1995 to 2005, the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 to 2004 and the Parental Leave Acts 1998 to 2006 must be included. The Minister of State might say that a plethora of Acts is included and ask why we should insert more. If a worker returns from sick leave but is refused annual leave, NERA can examine complaints relating to annual leave because provision is made in respect of rights thereto under the Organisation of Working Time Act. However, it is not in a position to consider people's rights that arise under the maternity legislation. By leaving the legislation to which I refer out of the Schedule, the potential for the creation of unnecessary difficulties or loopholes will be created. People would also enjoy less protection than exists under the other employment rights legislation.

Consideration should also be given to including the relevant section of the Data Protection Acts 1999 to 2003, at the very least for investigation purposes.

Section 6 states: "The objective of the National Employment Rights Authority shall be to promote, encourage and secure compliance with employment legislation." As I indicated, I would prefer if this function was performed by the labour section of the Department. Given the importance of encouraging compliance with employment rights, the promotion of rights must be given a prime position in legislation. In fairness, the Minister of State noted that considerable public awareness work has been done through television and radio advertisements and so forth.

While I accept the need to avoid strangling companies with bureaucracy, maintaining employment records of staff is not an earth-shattering requirement. Incidentally, I support the inclusion of ISME in the partnership process. Given that one cannot abrogate statutory employment rights, how would it be possible to kick them to touch? Nevertheless, I accept the necessity to provide employers with a single, uniform and simplified form. Mr. Mark Fielding of ISME and Ms Patricia Callan of the Small Firms Association stated before the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment that companies receive a plethora of forms, all of which seek similar information. This excessive bureaucracy is smothering small companies. Mr. Fielding and Ms Callan called for a single form to be introduced, which could be filled in on-line. The information provided could then be accessed by agencies such as the Central Statistics Office, Revenue Commissioners and NERA and the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Social and Family Affairs, the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and others.

We cannot abrogate workers' rights because they do not suit employers. I say this as one whose wife must maintain employee records and documentation such as P35 forms. The National Employment Rights Authority may secure compliance through a number of means. I hope the first port of call will be encouragement and awareness and NERA will not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, in the case of recalcitrant employers, the director of NERA may initiate prosecutions of offences by way of summary proceedings or refer cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions where the director has reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence under employment legislation has been committed.

The application of dissuasive sanctions is crucial in this area, as it is in all other areas of law. It is no use burying our heads in the sand or denying that we have unscrupulous employers. I have stood on picket lines with workers employed by such companies. In doing so, I was following in the footsteps of my forefathers and I would do so again. My party goes back as far as 1913 and we have not forgotten that rights are trampled on.

I would be inclined to limit the role of advisory boards, whereas trade unions may wish to have the role of these boards strengthened. Why is advice needed when the law is available?

See this speech in context