Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

We find that figures can be a very risky business. The provisions of the Bill arise directly from the process of consultation negotiation as referred to in the context of Towards 2016.

With regard to NERA being a quango, an advisory board was established and a former Member of the House, John Dennehy, was appointed chair of this board. I have known John Dennehy for a long time and he has a wealth of experience in that he was a member of a trade union for many years and was a shop steward. He was also involved in health and safety in Irish Steel. He is a former Lord Mayor of Cork, a former chair of the Southern Health Board and a former Member of this House.

There is no remuneration for people on the advisory board. They just give of their time. The idea was to get a cross-section of people from employer and employee groups to harness expertise, and to have a chair with experience on both sides to bring them together to advise NERA on an ongoing basis without getting involved in the day to day details. This advisory group does not constitute an onerous cost to the Exchequer. Views were being put about that its members are on large sums of money. I want to clarify that this is inaccurate. It will remain staffed by civil servants but at a sufficient arm's length from the Department for good operational reasons. The advisory board has drawn from a great wealth of experience, so the compliance message is put across to employers. No fees are paid to the advisory board.

The issue about quangos must be kept in context. The reason it was set up on a statutory basis is that we want to ensure it is slightly removed from the Department. The Minister will not be taking the prosecutions, but NERA itself will do so. The Bill puts NERA on the same statutory footing as other organisations. It allows the body to work in close co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Garda Síochána. That is a positive aspect, as it allows those bodies to undertake joint operations and pool resources and information. It can then address concerns in a more effective manner, which most people will welcome.

Deputies Fleming and Penrose expressed concerns about the level of accountability to the Oireachtas of the director of NERA. Deputy Fleming also questioned whether the restrictions placed on the director for 12 months following the cessation of his appointment were appropriate. Section 25 ensures that the director is accountable to the Oireachtas by being required to appear before Oireachtas committees on request. The 12 month restriction placed on the director under section 9 of the Bill would arise only if he or she resigned or was removed from office. We might look at this on Committee Stage to make sure there is accountability. We do not want the director before us every day of the week, asking him or her to explain a prosecution before the court. However, we will have him or her before committees to explain policy and to bring accountability on broader issues. A code of practice for inspectors can allow for these issues to be raised in a discussion with the director before an Oireachtas committee.

If Deputies feel there is not enough accountability in NERA, we can re-examine the matter. However, the purpose of the Bill is to remove the authority from the Minister and the Department and to allow for a statutory set up of the authority in order that it can take prosecutions in its own name.

Deputy Varadkar and others raised issues about employers. We are seeking to remove some of the more severe sanctions where employers have ended up with criminal convictions for what we would consider lesser offences. We can have a detailed discussion about that on Committee Stage, and we are very open to examining that area. We need a strong Bill, but some offences may be dropped. I hope that satisfies those Deputies who expressed concern. We cannot water down a Bill to a stage where it is incapable of operating as a deterrent. There must be a deterrent and sanction at the end of the day. We have had a very beneficial debate. If there are any points people wish to make, we are open to listening to them on Committee Stage, but the broad thrust of the Bill is the same.

Different issues have been raised by many Deputies, such as on-the-spot fines, the accountability of NERA and section 45. In order that people can ask themselves whether this Bill is before us for the right reasons, I will outline a few recent cases. In the case of an employer and a domestic worker, the domestic worker was given a contract of employment setting out the minimum rate of pay and specifying a 39 hour week. The employee alleged that she was required to work in excess of 90 hours per week with no breaks, and that the minimum wage per hour was not paid. NERA investigated this complaint and arrears of €10,000 were paid to that employee. That is a substantial sum of money to a person on the minimum wage. It was gross exploitation and that is why we must be conscious that this is happening in our communities.

Another minimum wage case involves a tyre sales and puncture repair company. The employees alleged that they were being paid €5 per hour, even though the minimum wage is €8.65 per hour. The employer refused to co-operate with the inspection process or with any written requests. He stated that he did not know the names of his employees, that they received €50 per day, but he would not specify the hours worked. No records were provided despite repeated requests. The only avenue currently open to NERA is to take a prosecution against the employer for failure to produce records. The current maximum fine for such an offence is a little over €1,900. I have many other examples involving construction companies and registered employment agreements. This is what is happening, and we need to be conscious of that.

I have delayed the House long enough. I thank the Deputies and the officials in the Department who have worked long hours to bring this Bill before the Dáil. We are understanding of all views in the House, but the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ensure we have compliance with all the existing employment rights legislation. The Bill does not put any extra employment law on the statute books. It only enforces that law. I look forward to Committee Stage. I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence. I probably went over my time, but I think there were important points that needed to be made. When we are discussing this on Committee Stage in the bowels of Leinster House, we can have a genuine debate. The social partners have agreed on this, and it is important that the Bill has got their support. It is being put forward for all the right reasons, and I look forward to debating it on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context