Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Finian McGrath.

As the previous speakers stated, this is not the way in which to conduct Dáil business. What is being done is an absolute disgrace. Some years ago, the Department of the Taoiseach produced a document entitled Regulating Better - A Government White Paper setting out six principles of Better Regulation. Everyone of the principles set out in that document was breached when the relevant amendments were brought forward at a late stage last night. I object to the rushed nature of the debate on the motion before the House and also to the guillotine that will be imposed in respect of the Report Stage debate on the Bill.

The context relating to the introduction of the Bill must be borne in mind. The original legislation was rushed into the House and the debate on Committee Stage, for which, unfortunately, I was not able to be present, was also rushed and involved the introduction of major changes by the Minister. This brings me back to the time in office of the former Minister, Michael McDowell, who used to do exactly the same thing. He would produce a Bill and then, halfway through its passage, would produce a huge raft of amendments on Committee Stage and then would try to do the same on Report Stage. This is not the way in which to do business and if one substantially changes a Bill from its original intention, my recommendation would have been to start all over again. When tabling amendments, Opposition Members are continually told that if one attempts to change the focus of the Bill, one's amendment will be ruled out of order. However, the Minister evidently can do as he pleases because proposals have been included in this Bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the original intentions of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill. I simply make this point.

In so far as possible, like other Members I wish to discuss some of the proposals that have been put before them in a limited fashion. However, this is difficult when one does not have sufficient time to go into major details and when the briefing document from the Department merely comprises a number of paragraphs. Although the consequences of the amendments with which Members will be dealing are the equivalent of another social welfare Bill, the explanatory memorandum is not huge. As everyone is aware, in legislation it sometimes is difficult to reach the normal working language of people. A note arrived yesterday evening to the effect that substantial amendments were forthcoming and which, as I noted, were outside of the original scope of the Bill. Moreover, other Members and hopefully the Minister, will be aware that Oireachtas Members have been receiving thousands of e-mails rightly protesting against the sell-out of Ireland. Buried among them, quite late last night, was an e-mail stating that these amendments had arrived. Although I had received an indication previously that these amendments were due, these are the consequences of rushing it through.

In the limited time available to me I do not have a major problem with the amendments pertaining to civil partnership. I welcome them and as I stated during the debate on the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, I would have gone further in that regard. If one considers the time that has elapsed since the Oireachtas passed the aforementioned Act and the preparation and so on, at this late stage I do not discern the reason these amendments have suddenly landed on Members' doorsteps today, as they should have been included in the first Bill. They would have been welcome and Members could have discussed them in a proper fashion, as they did on Second and Report Stages, even with limited time.

The amendment regarding the 4% contribution to the social insurance fund from public office holders also is welcome. I believe it falls far short of what is needed and that the proportion of the burden of recovery placed on Ministers, Deputies, judges etc. should be higher. Sinn Féin's pre-budget submission to the Minister for Finance made a number of suggestions on how to eliminate wasteful spending on exorbitant wages and it would have resulted in a greater degree of pain to those who are quite well-paid public servants and semi-State employees, as well as to those who charge exorbitant professional fees. Those proposals are available. Again, as I noted, I have not had sufficient time to examine the amendments with a fine tooth comb but I welcome the principle of these aspects of the amendments. It is better late than never and constitutes movement in the right direction.

I have a number of concerns in respect of the lack of any principal legislation governing internships and workplaces. I refer in particular to the absence of legislation affording participants basic rights or legislative safeguards against worker displacement. I believe the previous speaker also mentioned this issue. Government amendment No. 25 pertains to the status of persons participating in work placement and internship programmes and provides for their disqualification from receiving benefits. It is written in the usual convoluted fashion in which legislation is put together and I wish Ireland had the same plain English campaign as obtains in Britain because it would make it easier for Members to get to grips with it. However, the gist of the amendment is that a FÁS training allowance will be paid to people. It will be equivalent to their social welfare entitlement and on top of this, they also will receive an up-skilling bonus of €100 per week.

The key component in this regard is whether the enterprises and employers are available to offer work. To date, a huge hunger on the part of the majority of those represented by IBEC to employ many more people has not been evident. Their hunger to date has been simply to reduce the minimum wage and I am concerned that this job placement initiative will be used as cheap labour by some unscrupulous employers or will be used to displace existing workers. This is a major concern that must be considered and whatever is done in this regard, there must be no possibility of existing workers being sidelined or removed from their position to facilitate an internship programme. Moreover, there must be a mechanism in place for those who consider themselves to be aggrieved in this manner to gain access rapidly to the Labour Court or whatever institution before this becomes a practice among some within the business community.

The language of the proposed section 298A of the Principal Act contains warning flags that point to the vulnerability of those who take up such positions. This section emphasises that participants, apart from the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, are deemed not to be employees of the person for whom they are working, because they are in an internship. However, it also is at pains to state that the Minister is not deemed to be the employer either. Who is the employer in respect of health and safety law in particular? Is it FÁS or who has the obligations in this regard?

As for the last major portion of the Bill, I welcome that for once, the huge volume of Irish private pension funds amounting to half a trillion euro, might be encouraged to invest in Ireland. They should have been doing so from the outset and perhaps the Oireachtas should consider introducing a levy on those pensions to gain an immediate fund for the State. For example, a levy of 1% would raise €5 billion but one could also consider setting a compulsory percentage of such funds to be invested in Ireland to ensure that huge structural projects that must be carried out are built and delivered.

See this speech in context