Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—Twelve months following the passage of the Act the Minister shall report to the Dáil on the impact of its operations including—

(a) the number of new jobs created;

(b) wage trends over the period with particular attention to the scale of wage

reductions to the €356 level; and

(c) the number of complaints made.".

The purpose of the amendment is to seek a report from the Minister in 12 months on the impact of the operation, the number of new jobs created, the wage trends during the period with particular attention to the wage reductions down to the level of €356, and the number of complaints being made on job displacement such as the ending of contracts and people being rehired on a less favourable contract. Employees may come under pressure from certain unscrupulous employers to reduce their wages so that they can make savings in PRSI.

The amendment that was ruled out of order had a similar effect. It related to the proposals under the jobs initiative that so many jobs would be created. We all wish jobs to be created and we want people back in employment under the best terms and conditions. We also wish companies well so that employers can feel confident that they are operating in a proper climate. As legislators we need to be mindful always of the impact of any legislation we pass. As I have continually stated in the House, it was suggested in the White Paper, Regulating Better, which was produced a number of years ago and dealt with how we do our business in terms of legislation and so on, that a regulatory impact analysis should be carried out for every Bill. I have gone further and stated that every Bill should also state its impact in terms of addressing poverty. We want to make sure the Bill we are discussing here will not create a downward trend in the wages of those who are currently around the €356 per week mark. We should have some indication within a year of whether the Bill is having the effect that is desired by the Government and whether it has resulted in any new jobs. It would be no harm for the Minister, if she so wished, to add information on the number of jobs that have been retained in that period specifically due to these measures rather than because of any growth in the economy.

That was the intention of the two amendments that deal with this area. Given that amendment No. 5 involves no charge on the Exchequer, it does not have the effect of negating the Bill, which was the reason No. 4 was ruled out of order for being contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Amendment No. 5 would provide for something that could be done; it could later be decided, at the relevant committee or in the House, whether it had had an effect. It might also inform us, at a later date, of the long-term trend in employers' PRSI, giving us the opportunity of reshaping it if required. That was the intention of the amendment, and I will be interested to hear the Minister's response.

See this speech in context