Dáil debates

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Employment Law Compliance Bill: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

6:00 pm

Photo of Noel O'FlynnNoel O'Flynn (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick was in possession with two minutes remaining when the debate was adjourned. However, he does not wish to speak further on the Bill. I call Deputy Seán Barrett.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The main reason I wish to speak on this legislation is to state my total disagreement in regard to the establishment of another quango. We have a sufficient number of quangos. To the best of my knowledge there are more than 1,000 of them. Every effort is being made, in particular by my party, to put in train procedures to reduce dramatically the number of quangos in existence.

There is no need for a national employment rights authority as suggested in this legislation. Employees' rights are already protected by legislation. Also, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment incorporates the old Department of Labour. The Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, who is present in the House bears responsibility for labour affairs and I have full confidence in his being able to carry out his duties in this regard.

What is needed is not another quango but a proper inspectorate to ensure that those who suffer at the hands of rogue employers obtain their rights under existing legislation, all of which should be catered for by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The Minister stated that the organisation has delivered on the provision of regional cover with offices in Carlow, Dublin, Cork, Sligo and Shannon. Even before this legislation is passed, offices have been set up in Carlow, Dublin, Cork, Sligo and Shannon. What are we doing? We have massive unemployment, people are going out of business every day and other people are taking massive cuts in wages and salaries while we are setting up a quango, the problems associated with which could be dealt with by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. How did we ever get on without all these quangos? If one puts down a parliamentary question on any of these issues in the future, one will be told the Minister has no responsibility in this area.

We must make up our minds whether we are living in a democracy. Taxpayers do not want this. Public servants are being asked to carry a massive pension levy, some of which will go to pay unnecessary overheads for offices, staff and all the paraphernalia in five different regions. It is unbelievable. There is no necessity to go ahead with this.

There is no doubt this was dreamt up at the time of the Gama scandal and I am sure it was a deal done between the Government of the day and the social partners to overcome those difficulties. While I do not wish to stand over any rogue employers, there is no necessity for this Bill. I ask the Minister to withdraw the legislation and go back to the drawing board. If existing legislation needs to be strengthened, it should by all means be done. I am sure my party would recognise any solid proposals to come forward in this regard. However, in terms of supporting a quango, the Fine Gael party has no intention of supporting the establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority on a statutory basis, and I am delighted about that.

Not alone will we set up a quango, the Bill from sections 6 to 31, inclusive, deals extensively with its establishment. It refers to the setting up of a director; the establishment of the office; superannuation; terms and conditions of employment; the resignation, suspension, removal and disqualification of director; membership of either House of the Oireachtas, European Parliament or local authority; the acting director; the functions of a director; delegation of functions of the director; ministerial policy directions; obligation to consult with the director; power to engage consultants and advisers — the list goes on. It will be a bonanza of money going out the window.

The next heading is a great one — establishment and functions of the advisory board. Why in God's name do we need an advisory board? It is bad enough setting up the quango. This is another outing like the one we had in the FÁS scenario. It is all to do with jobs for the boys. At a time when we are trying to convince the public to accept sacrifices to get this country back on its feet, we are setting up a quango for which there is no necessity.

The Bill then refers to membership of the advisory board and the terms and conditions of membership. There is a special section on the chairperson of the advisory board and the next sections concern the annual report and information to the Minister; and a strategy statement. What strategy statement could there be in respect of this quango? It then refers to a work programme; accountability of the director before an Oireachtas committee; the director's annual report; disclosure of certain information; co-operation between the director and official agencies. This is great stuff. It continues with regard to disclosure of information relating to offences; prohibition on authorised disclosure of information.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At a time when no one is working.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It then refers to the non-application of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 and the Data Protection Act 1988 to certain records held or created by the director.

It is taking some 26 sections of the Bill to set up this authority. The Minister of State may be in a position where he is forced into this sort of stuff because of previous agreements but I strongly recommend that he go back to the social partners and tell them that if the Government tried to proceed with this, it would be the laughing stock of the country.

We will then tell people about all the red tape involved and who will pay the bills.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a good one.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then, there are all the rights, including a right of access to one's property to gather reports and so on. This authority will have more rights than CAB.

My colleagues beside me are having a good laugh. While I am not sure what it is about, I am sure it is not about the Bill.

Photo of Charlie O'ConnorCharlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They would not be laughing at Deputy Barrett.

Photo of John PerryJohn Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Certainly not.

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope all Deputies will see sense. If enough of us express our honest opinion, the Government will withdraw this Bill.

The Bill creates 23 new criminal offences. The authority will be given the power to impose on-the-spot fines on employers without giving them the chance to rectify any problem. Employers could face fines of up to €250,000 for failing to keep adequate records, fines of up to €5,000 for other offences and prison sentences of up to five years. Are we for real? It does not even distinguish between an employer who employs a small number of people and a large employer with 1,000 staff.

Do people understand how difficult it is in this day and age to start one's own small business? It is hard enough to get the finance to do it but we are then imposing all sorts of obligations on a small employer to have notices everywhere about employees' rights and all of that. We are not living in the real world. I want to encourage people to go out and start their own small businesses and, hopefully, expand and give employment to others.

Employers have a moral obligation to be fair and reasonable to any employee — that is taken as read and is as it should be. If some abuse the rights of any employee, there is the Minister of State responsible for a labour affairs and all of the other authorities, including the Rights Commissioner Service, the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Equality Tribunal, the Department of Social and Family Affairs in regard to pensions, and the Health and Safety Authority. We have all of these bodies but we now want to add another layer on to all of this. People must begin to understand it is difficult with all the red tape to start up a small business and to keep things ticking over.

If people are abusing workers, in particular immigrants to this country, and not giving them a fair crack of the whip, there are sufficient laws in place to deal with them. If the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment was to increase the number of inspectors available to investigate issues, that is all that is needed. We do not need five offices in Carlow, Dublin, Cork, Sligo and Shannon. We do not need a quango with a whole structure and a head office with all the trimmings, annual reports and consultants — consultants for what?

This really is an example of how we can lose the run of ourselves in terms of giving commitments to do things. At a time when there was plenty, or people thought there was plenty, it was a luxury nobody really thought about. However, in this day and age, we cannot do that. To talk about putting people in prison for five years or charging them on-the-spot fines of anything up to €250,000 for failing to keep adequate records is to throw out the baby with the bath water. It is extraordinary. The National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, will be able to use powers similar to those of the Garda, the customs authorities and the Competition Authority. It will be able to enter and inspect a workplace, seal it off, and remove documents. It does not require any basis to do so. It can be done on the basis of a complaint. This is not Russia, it is a democracy and people here have rights. The fact that one is an employer does not make one a big bad wolf. We need employers, those who employ one person and those who employ 5,000 people. We should begin to encourage people into this business and cut out half of the red tape already in place, rather than produce more of it.

Some time ago I spoke to a constituent concerning the electrical industry. There is a new section in the Bill dealing with compliance with registered employment agreements in the electrical contracting industry. Will the Minister provide a detailed description of what exactly this means? It is difficult to discern the meaning from reading the Bill. The person who came to me made a plea for the Minister to do something about another quango, established to collect money and the purpose of which no one seems to know. Section 45, dealing with compliance with registered employment agreements in the electrical contracting industry covers several pages. Will the Minister provide a full, detailed account of its purpose and why it is necessary? It seems that someone thought it would be a bright idea to support another quango.

The main purpose for which I am here this evening is to request that the Minister withdraw the legislation. It is not to condone bad behaviour on the part of any employer against an employee. We should come back down to earth and realise that there is a Civil Service, with top officials who are quite capable and who have worked for years in this area. There have been several very good Ministers of State with responsibility for labour affairs who were elected by the people. They were able to resolve difficulties and problems by encouraging people to discuss them at the negotiating table. There is also the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which can deal with these matters.

All that is necessary is more inspectors. Let us cut out this nonsense of more offices, directors, quangos, reports and consultants, for which there is no justification. Let us examine where it is possible to reduce red tape and encourage more employment. Let us cut out these extra layers of bureaucracy. There are many agencies already in existence which deal with people's rights. It is not the case that we are crying out for additional agencies. Let us be realistic and not discuss shoving people into prison or imposing a fine of €250,000 for not displaying notices. What message does that send out to someone wishing to start a business? It does nothing but encourage small businesses into the black economy.

A small business person running a plumbing, electrical or carpentry business does not have time to keep all the necessary material for no good reason. Such people pay taxes, insurance, social welfare and all the other requirements of an employer. Let them get on with the job rather than create another agency with jobs for various people. Not alone will newly appointed people have a job in the agency, an advisory board with a chairman and board members will also be established in case anyone is left out. There are many of jobs for the boys in the thousand quangos already in existence without creating another one.

7:00 pm

Photo of Charlie O'ConnorCharlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make what I suspect will be a brief contribution to the debate and I look forward to saying a good deal more tomorrow. The Minister will no doubt be interested in the contribution of Deputy Seán Barrett. The Deputy is aware that I have admired his work for a long time, and that will not change tonight. However, from listening to his contribution and the relevant and valid points made, the position of the Minister will inevitability be that he is damned if he does, and he is damned if he does not introduce the legislation.

The Minister of State pointed out in his introductory speech that NERA was established on an interim basis following the social partnership agreement Towards 2016. We all understand that this took place against a backdrop of much disquiet about the inadequacy of enforcement of employment law standards. The Minister of State also pointed out that Deputies throughout the House, including me, have raised with him and the Government a range of issues relating to these standards. He made the famous remark that the Government was condemned for having more dog wardens than labour inspectors and his intention was to remedy that situation. In fairness to the Minister of State, he has shown a particular interest in these issues, which is important, as the previous speaker will agree I am sure. The Minister of State must listen to the debate and balance what is right and wrong.

I do not suggest the view is held by Deputy Barrett, but I sense there is a view that with the current economic situation it would be very easy for the Department and its inspectors to blink when certain things occur. However it is important to stress this is not the case. Before I became a Deputy and a public representative I was always in employment, thank God. I was involved in the trade union movement and I bring to politics my experiences in that regard. I can state that I lost my job on three separate occasions. It was always a very dramatic experience for my family and me. That recollection brings home to me the importance of good employment and that workers' rights should always be protected.

The previous contribution formed an interesting part of the wider debate. The Minister of State must try to do what is right and uphold the principles of social partnership. The past two weeks have been difficult for those of us who strongly support social partnership. Many trade union officials have made that point. Despite some comment to the contrary, trade union officials have been discussing events with Fianna Fáil Deputies in the recent past. I have had much interaction with friends in the movement, who have a point of view to express. When I have an opportunity to make a greater contribution to this debate I will support the concept of ensuring that labour laws are always upheld. I believe the intentions of the Minister of State will have broad support. The Minister must make a decision in due course. I listened when he introduced the Employment Law Compliance Bill 2008 and recall hearing that he was open and amenable to the comments of the House and to amendments. I suspect there will be many of these.

Debate adjourned.