Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)

I congratulate the proposers of the Bill and I am glad to speak to it. I agree with the remarks made from the opposite side of the House. I support the Minister of State's remarks on the issue of insolvency. That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill but it concerns just one section of the Bill. I strongly agree with Deputy Com Keaveney in his remarks about the powers of the Labour Court. Last Thursday I had a long debate with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Employment about that matter because it was the subject of my first priority question to him. I regret to inform the House that he resolutely refused to have anything to do with changing them in the slightest way. Clearly, work remains to be done in that regard.

The two main proposals made in the Bill would serve to speed up hearings before employment rights bodies. I heard people talk about a period of weeks, but 52 or 75 weeks could still be defind as a matter of weeks. The latest figures available to me suggest that if someone wants to go to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, he or she will be waiting for a year and a half. That is a disgrace. If someone wants to go to the Labour Court and happens to live outside Dublin, it will take six months. If someone wants to go to a rights commissioner, again, he or she must wait at least six months. Such delays should not happen in these cases; they amount to a gross injustice. Therefore, I welcome any proposal, from wherever it comes, that might alleviate the situation.

I take the Government's point that it is preparing its own proposals in respect of this matter. The advance publicity in respect of those proposals has prompted me to harbour certain concerns about them. I am more concerned about the Government's proposals than I am about Sinn Féin's, even though I know the latter are not perfect either. It would do no harm, in the short term, if the Government were to accept the aspect of the Bill to which I refer. Anything that can be done to alleviate the type of grossly unjust delays that are occurring would be welcome. Members on this side of the House are not entitled to put forward proposals which involve a charge on the Exchequer. I am of the view it will take more than legislation to rectify the position in respect of this matter and that a substantial commitment of resources is going to be required.

The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, focused entirely on the forthcoming proposals, which we eagerly await and which are supposed to be in place by the autumn. I hope they will be in place at that time. The Minister of State did not advert to the fact that the second principle aim of the Bill before the House, namely, that which relates to collective redundancies, will not be dealt with in the Government's proposals. The latter are administrative in nature and will deal with the system of making complaints. The issue of collective redundancies is above and beyond that.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill which relate to lengthening the period during which consultations and negotiations may take place in the event of collective redundancies. The Bill would bring the law in this country into line with that which obtains in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. However, I must sound a note of caution. Anybody who might seek to have the law here on the same footing as the law in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland should be careful. The 90 day period provided for in the United Kingdom in respect of undertakings with more than 100 employees is under attack from the Conservative-Liberal coalition. Various mutterings have been heard from Ministers and unnamed UK Government sources to the effect that this period is too long, that it hinders restructuring, etc. and that, in any event, it is not necessary in the digital age. I do not agree with such criticisms and I wish those who are making them would declare themselves publicly in order that a proper debate might take place.

The UK authorities are also contemplating increasing the period, from one year to two, for which a person must be employed in order to take an unfair dismissal case. They are also considering imposing a fee on those who bring cases before employment rights bodies. Even if we wanted to bring the law into line with that which obtains in the UK, I am sure we would not want to go down the road of imposing fees. When he introduced the legislation relating to joint labour committees, JLCs, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, stated that for competitive and many other reasons it would be very desirable if the law in this country were on a par with that in the United Kingdom. Strangely enough, he is now adopting a diametrically opposite position in respect of the Bill before the House. It has been posited, for example, that for all sorts of reasons the law in Ireland in respect of this matter cannot be in line with the law in the UK. I recall the Minister bemoaning how quickly the matter relating to TalkTalk in Waterford proceeded to finality. He has the opportunity to change the position in this regard by accepting the legislation. There are worse examples of the speed with which these matters are dealt. I understand Lagan Brick stopped operations within hours of the employees being informed of what was happening.

I am of the view we should look beyond the United Kingdom to other jurisdictions to see what we can do to improve employee rights without jeopardising foreign direct investment. While the matter dealt with in this Bill in the context of collective redundancies is important, it is only one small aspect of the general problem that exists. There is a much bigger picture of which we must be aware. The European Commission is conducting a detailed audit in respect of collective redundancies, the transfer of undertakings and information and consultation directives. When the Minister or whoever replies to this debate on the Government's behalf tomorrow, I would like to be informed with regard to the input Ireland is having into this audit. The outcome of the Commission's audit will ultimately be reflected in the laws of the State. However, that is a matter for the future. We are concerned with the present, especially in the context of the fact that redundancies are not going to cease.

The Bill contains provisions which will marginally improve the lot of workers in the event of collective redundancies taking place. The rights of workers are quite scant and they are certainly not that extensive in nature. We are concerned with vulnerable individuals who will be facing into redundancy and a loss of livelihood. Some of them will be being made unemployed after many years in work. They will also be obliged to deal with a loss of status in society and a catastrophic drop in their living standards. The Bill, limited though it may be, seeks to give them extra rights and to improve their situation to some extent. My advice to the Labour Party members of the Government would be to approach the relevant Minister or the Taoiseach and persuade them to allow the Bill to proceed on its course. This legislation is not going to do any harm and it has the capacity to do some good. Those in the Labour Party should not come before the House and refer to May Day, James Connolly and so forth and then vote down legislation which is designed to help workers who are at their most vulnerable. Those to whom I refer should certainly not vote against the Bill on the basis of some vague promise of jam tomorrow or in the dim and distant future.

Anything which assists extremely vulnerable workers at a time when they are facing into a personal and financial catastrophe should be both welcomed and taken on board by the Government. If the latter has more extensive and better proposals to introduce in the future - I do not care whether these originate with the EU or come from within the Department - then it can by all means introduce them. In the interim, however, it should grant the temporary alleviation envisaged in the Bill before the House.

See this speech in context