Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage that was ruled out of order because of a charge on the Exchequer and a breach of Standing Order 179(3), which states: "An amendment to a Bill which could have the effect of imposing or increasing a charge upon the revenue may not be moved by any member, save a member of the Government or Minister of State." We are told these amendments have potential cost implications but it is an astonishing proposition that a proposal to increase the amount of compensation payable to a worker by an employer found to be in breach of the law could be ruled out of order on the basis that the State itself as an employer might be found to be in breach of the law and have to pay compensation. The debate that took three hours was on the very same issue. I know the Chairman had to do it, but we have had the wholesale ruling out of all Opposition amendments to a Bill seeking to reform employment laws in general terms and not specifically directed at the State. None of the amendments was specifically directed at the State. This seems to be unprecedented and wrong on principle, and it will have to be looked at in the House.

If such an approach were to be applied across the board, we could not amend land law because the State is a landowner, we could not amend tort law because the State is protected by vicarious liability, we could not amend contract law because the State enters into contracts and we could not amend criminal law because the State must pay gardaí to police the criminal laws. This issue must be addressed. It cannot be the case that the relevant constitutional provisions and the Standing Orders designed to inform the Constitution were ever intended to block anyone bar the Government from contributing in any meaningful way to the legislative process in such a draconian fashion. The rest of us are being relegated to mere observer status.

This is important. I agree with Deputy Brady as various unions have been in contact with us. We saw what happened to Dunnes Stores workers, which was the trigger to try to deal with this matter. Certainly during the downturn there has been increasing casualisation of labour. I was very eager this would be encompassed in the legislation. It was germane to the entire issue and went to the heart of what we are trying to fix. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of legislation. If it goes around in rings it could be next October or November by the time it gets to be signed by the President, whoever he or she is. That would be a significant delay.

I appreciate what Deputy O'Dea is trying to do, but we will have to wait and see what the Minister has to say. In the context of the previous amendment, the last thing we want to do is go around in rings and come back in a circle to where we started, making no progress for the very employees who are the most vulnerable and who are exposed. None of them will thank us. If we can get the legislation 99% right that will be great, and if we find a 1% lacuna it will be very easy to introduce an amendment. Under the new political dispensation the amendment could be implemented or applied very quickly. However, if there is a 100% lacuna because we fail to act, it will be the worst of all worlds for the very employees we are trying to protect and whose protections we are trying to enhance. I agree with Deputy Brady that we had better see whether we can make progress as quickly as possible on this legislation, notwithstanding that Deputy O'Dea's point is well made.

See this speech in context