Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

No; what I am saying is that appointments to public bodies should be properly scrutinised. I am saying that the members of a party that preached that line for ten years and voted down a Bill containing such provisions on the basis that it did not go far enough are hypocrites. I am happy to stand over that in any forum whatsoever. At least Fianna Fáil does not pretend anything; its members are clear on where they stand on this issue. It is the Green Party members who are hypocrites - on this issue, on the banking inquiry - you name it. Never has a party sold itself so cheaply. One can see it now with the cronyism and hypocrisy it is demonstrating across the board. It is shocking. As somebody who often gave my number to the Green Party, I will certainly never do so again.

The exclusion of local authority members from the advisory board under section 34 is not necessary. It is probably appropriate not to have Oireachtas Members or MEPs on the advisory committee, but it may be appropriate for a member of a local authority, if he or she is suitably qualified, to be appointed. Of course, local authority members have been elected. It is ironic that if one is elected one cannot be on an advisory committee but if one could not get any votes and one is a Green Party member one is almost automatically appointed. That provision should be removed. I do not see why the entire body of a thousand town, city and county councillors should be excluded by statute from the advisory committee and I will be proposing to remove that provision on Committee Stage.

I mentioned the different definitions of "employee" and "worker". There is one other aspect of the Bill that is worthy of mention, to which I referred already in connection with sections 12 and 13. Section 13(1)(b) states that the type of employment agency that would not be permitted to carry out business in the State would be one that:

...is convicted of an offence in a state other than the State, and the acts or omissions of which that offence consists would, if committed in the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State and be prosecutable—

(i) on indictment, or

(ii) summarily or, at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, on indictment,

or

(c) contravenes a condition contained in a direction of the Circuit Court under section 15(6)(b)

Perhaps I am misreading it, but it seems to mean that if an employment agency that was totally compliant in another state did something that would have been illegal in this State it could be barred from obtaining a licence. If that is the case, it will not stand up to legal challenge. I would like to see the legal advice on that.

This Bill is essentially a replacement of the Employment Agency Act 1971. It is not a large Bill but it is necessary, and we will support it broadly. However, I have concerns about the particular points I mentioned, and we will be tabling amendments on those issues on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context