Results 281-300 of 4,363 for speaker:Arthur Morgan

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: A burdensome regulatory framework that is patently irrelevant to their circumstances could inhibit the self-employed. The weight of such legislation would act as a barrier to them commencing employment because they would be liable to inspection. That is not the intention of the legislation and therefore I support the amendment.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I move amendment No. 21: In page 30, line 39, after "annually" to insert ", upon commencing employment". This is a very straightforward amendment, which is loaded with common sense, as are all my amendments. Section 20(3) states: (3) Every employer shall bring the safety statement, in a form, manner and, as appropriate, language that is reasonably likely to be understood, to the attention...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I thank the Minister for his words and for recognising the amendment's merit. I therefore withdraw the amendment.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I feel similarly. A number of these——

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I move amendment No. 25: In page 37, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: "(f) harassment by way of abuse of any provision contained in this Act.". This amendment would offer some protection to employees from any malicious employers who, for example, chose to abuse the provisions for the testing of alcohol and intoxicants. Given that workers are already considerably exposed to...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I accept there are some general protections afforded to employees in subsection (1) but they are insufficiently specific. This amendment gives a very specific balance to the Bill, in particular to section 13(c). I accept the generality of subsection (1) and do not mean to criticise it, except to say that it is insufficiently specific with regard to something as broad as section 13(c). It is...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: We are going nowhere with this amendment. I thought that including the term "harassment" would have been quite specific and clear and that the Bill required that level of clarity. The Minister of State disagrees with my argument so we must rest the matter.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I take umbrage with——

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: In terms of good practice, I acknowledge the Minister of State's amendment to remove the chief executive officer from the board. That is a welcome move and is helpful to the Bill. It is not like me to be mischievous and to try to up the ante in regard to the 50%. If that impression has been created, let it rest lightly with the Minister of State. I am not opposed to Deputy Howlin's amendment...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I am disposed to praise the Minister of State yet again for his appointment of in excess of 40% of women to the board. However, I am reluctant to do so in case I get him sacked. I remind him of my earlier point that there are a few people in Cabinet who are, to say the least, wayward, if not bordering on the lunatic. Lunatics. Imagine the position if one of them came to the Chamber at this...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I move amendment No. 32: In page 44, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following: "(3) The Minister shall ensure that not less that 50 per cent of the members of the Authority shall be women.". Amendment put and declared lost.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I move amendment No. 34: In page 49, line 15, to delete "may" and substitute "shall". Section 45 of the Bill states: In each year there may be paid to the Authority out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant or grants of such amount or amounts as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines for the purposes of expenditure by the Authority in performing its...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I thank Deputy Durkan for his support and I noted his reference to the Mullingar accord. We must bring the Deputy a bit closer and perhaps we can have an Ardee accord. The Minister of State said this amendment would represent an intrusion on the Oireachtas. On many occasions, a good intrusion is exactly what the Oireachtas needs. This is one such occasion. What better way is there of...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed). (26 Apr 2005)

Arthur Morgan: What would be the consequences for a chief executive officer coming before an Oireachtas committee where he or she is expected to answer honestly a question put by the committee? If the opinion of the chief executive officer happened to be at variance with the policy of the Government of the day — which is an important qualification — what would be the consequences for the chief executive...

Requests to move Adjournment of Dáil under Standing Order 31. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 31 to debate the following urgent matter: the proposed closure of the Waterford Crystal factory at Dungarvan, County Waterford, with the loss of 485 jobs there and in Waterford city, and the need for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to intervene to prevent this devastating economic blow to the south east.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I sympathise with the position outlined by the Minister of State in terms of the definitive proposals to be brought forward by the Law Reform Commission. However, in the absence of the recommendations, I am disposed to supporting Deputy Howlin's amendment. I take on board the Minister of State's point that we should see what the Law Reform Commission will bring forward, but in the absence of...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: I move amendment No. 53: In page 76, line 30, to delete "€3,000,000" and substitute "€10,000,000". The sum of €3 million could be little more than arse pocket money to some multinational corporations, which have a turnover of several billion euro.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: Back pocket money. The fine does not represent a proper deterrent. I do not know that the courts will employ it but I would prefer to give them the option of imposing a significant fine in these cases. The courts should be given that strength because if disciplinary proceedings are brought against these corporations and compensation sought, that is the way it should be done.

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: The Minister of State made a reasonable point but my difficulty is that multinational corporations can afford modern day Perry Masons or whizz kid defence lawyers and the prosecution of all the offences often does not succeed. If the prosecution of only one offence succeeds, the court should at least have the opportunity to impose a significant fine on the defendant. Whizz kid lawyers in...

Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2004: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage. (4 May 2005)

Arthur Morgan: We are not calling for ten-year sentences in all cases. It is a question of providing the courts with the option, and it is important that the courts should have the power to impose a heavier sentence than two years where appropriate. That facility should be provided.