Alex White (Labour)

It is true major developments have occurred over the past decade and we all rejoice in the economic success of the country and participated in it. Various Members have come at this debate from various perspectives. The Minister of State, whom I welcome to the House, approaches it having a strong background in business as do Senators Quinn and Mary White.

As we are ticking the boxes on where we come from and what experience we have, my experience of dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises is as a practitioner in the non-trade sector, to which Senator Mary White referred, dealing with small business facing employment law issues. This is an area of regulation worth considering. Small businesses often find themselves up against it when they run into an issue, whether it is dismissing someone or facing a discrimination case. I am conscious of the frustration many businesses have. They do not necessarily believe the laws are bad or wrong, although some may hold this view. There is a lack of immediate support and guidance for dealing with these crises which can suddenly arise in the course of business, especially for a small business in the early stages of its development.

I often have seen people with fantastic energy who came together with a good idea in the information technology sector but they experienced a people management problem in the first six months or first year which caused difficulties. The representative bodies for employers do good work in assisting people in this situation. When we discuss regulation we tend to concentrate on financial matters such as those touched on by Senator Quinn. We should also consider the question of how we can better support small businesses and enterprises in the context of developing the laws by which they are bound, particularly employment law.

We can have vibrant and robust business together with strong protection of employment rights. The two are not mutually exclusive. Employment law has expanded in a piecemeal manner in recent years. European directives have been introduced which deal with part-time work and fixed-term contracts. These are minefields to navigate for small businesses run by one or two people. They want to look after existing customers and perhaps look to the future and new business. However, they see new regulations introduced weekly or monthly covering holidays, working time or equal treatment. We should consider streamlining some of this. Some of it is dealt with by the Labour Court and more is dealt with by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. One tries to explain to people that not all cases are brought before the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Some cases must go before the Labour Court while others go to the Rights Commissioner and then, in the event of an appeal, to the Labour Court. The different bodies have interlocking jurisdictions. Although the Department has given the matter some consideration, it would be productive to consider rationalising which types of cases should go before which tribunals. Such an analysis could help employers make sense of their responsibilities.

In respect of the wider question of regulation, the Labour Party acknowledges that we have achieved substantial progress through regulation, a word that tends to be accompanied by the word "burden". While regulation is frequently a burden for the person who must deal with it, it generally delivers a gain for wider society. For example, having equal treatment in the workplace, basic minimum holiday entitlements, regulations to prevent abuse of employment contracts and so forth provides a social gain which improves the quality of life. Once, during a debate with a person who reads The Economist more enthusiastically than I do, I responded to my opponent's repeated use of the term "burden of regulation" by asking whether one could not make the case for describing regulation as an achievement. There is a wider level of protection which we should defend. The Minister of State's concerns relating to the manner of its implementation in individual businesses is shared by Senators. Regulation should not be unnecessary or disproportionate to its objective and should be applied efficiently.

Like Senator John Paul Phelan, I found much of the Minister of State's contribution to be very thoughtful. It contained little with which I could disagree, especially regarding the education system. He is correct that education should not focus solely on honing individual skills. Having reading about this issue, it appears that even in countries such as the United States, employers seek to employ rounded individuals with an ability to make decisions and analyse problems. While individual skills are important, especially in a technical field, we need to have strong, innovative individuals with analytical and problem-solving skills employed in businesses across the private and public sectors. Innovation may be a skill with which one is born but it can also be developed. An education system that is strong at all levels encourages people to seek to solve problems as opposed to merely fitting in as cogs in the system.

The Minister was also correct that academics must play a greater role in this debate. I do not quite need to declare an interest in this regard but I am married to an academic. On a more serious note, the Minister of State makes a fair point that we want public intellectuals and experts, for instance, those teaching science or business at university, to contribute their ideas to this debate. Dr. Edward Walsh, formerly of the University of Limerick, springs to mind as a person who played this type of role. While I did not always agree with his positions, which were sometimes a little too far to the right for my liking, he made a strong contribution to public debate by becoming genuinely engaged with these issues.

The Minister of State referred to various public bodies such as the IDA, Forfás and Enterprise Ireland and singled out the Revenue Commissioners as an organisation which has developed many of its procedures to a high standard. We should do more than pay lip service to the important role of these organisations and the public service in general. We should also realise that while the public service must become more efficient in certain areas, it is at the heart of what we need to do because it must implement the new and changing policies, initiatives and ideas we develop. Senators had a little crack at the Minister of State on account of certain remarks he made about inefficiencies in the public service and in this context he is correct that inefficiencies exist here and there. However, this debate must not stray to the extent that we fail to recognise the vital role of the public sector in advancing the issues and demands under discussion. It has the skills needed for this purpose and is well equipped for the task. It is not enough to say, as the Minister of State did, that a partnership is needed. We must support the public service.