Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I also welcome the spirit and ethos of the legislation. The fact that it emerged from the social partnership process demonstrates the model can still work, in spite of the difficult circumstances we are experiencing. Nobody could disagree with the need to strengthen inspection of workplaces and enforcement of legislation, particularly in light of the more high profile cases involving Irish Ferries and Gama, which led to this necessary legislation. Equally, however, it is important to recall that 95% of employers operate in a fair manner and in full co-operation with their employees. Trends and practices have developed over the years, which follow the spirit of legislation and partnership, although they may not strictly adhere to legislation. It would be dangerous and unfair if the agencies established under the Bill led to such partnership being thrown out.

I welcome section 36 because, for the first time, the powers of labour inspectors under various employment statutes have been merged and it is positive to consolidate and broaden them in order that NERA's inspectors have all the powers they need. While I welcome this section, I am concerned about section 38 and, in particular, the provision that gives the director of the agency the authority to summon an employer to his or her office for cross-examination in a quasi-court setting with oaths and so on being involved. I appreciate there might be a need to do this but there are ways that can be done in the current judicial system. Is it necessary to introduce another element of hostility into the system when the Employment Appeals Tribunal and so on can be used to address issues?

Many Members, including myself, have received representations about the work of NERA and the way in which a number of inspectors have operated in recent months. The majority of inspectors have done a great job but the legislation provides for no restriction on the time of inspections other than that it should be reasonable in the view of the inspector. "Reasonable" is not 9 p.m. on a Saturday in a busy restaurant in the middle of the tourism season or at peak times when employers are trying to keep their businesses going. Employers with something to hide will do so at any time. The majority of those who have nothing to hide will make their records available at appropriate times and this provision should be re-examined.

Deputy Naughten referred to EPACE. It is important that the role of this organisation be clarified. Who is involved? Is it a private company with shareholdings, as in the unions? If so, why has it such an important role and authority? Could these be subsumed into NERA?

I commend the Minister of State on his work in recent weeks and months on the JLC issue, particularly in the catering sector. That system was allowed to continue for decades but it is completely outdated in a modern economy. This has impacted on the ability of people to work and businesses to employ in recent months. I commend the Minister of State on the speedy action he took and I hope he will bring the issue to a resolution before long.

The Government is committed to reducing the red tape burden on businesses by 25%. This burden is costing jobs. We are not absolving people of their rights. However, there are more efficient ways to proceed. At some point I would like to see a regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. What additional red tape will be involved from the perspectives of both employers and employees? It is often the employees who get hit. The less red tape we have, the better.

One of the Bill's aims is to foster increased co-operation in the workplace. However, we need to be very careful. We often do things in this House with good intentions and then pass the ball to an external agency such as we are creating in this case. Our good intentions tend to be enacted in very different ways. Fostering co-operation in the workplace means protecting jobs. However, it also means protecting good employers. I would say that 95% of employers in the country are good reputable people. We do not need to criminalise them.

See this speech in context