David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Acting Chairman, and I welcome the Minister of State; I am in a very welcoming mood. I am in flight, so to speak, between committees but I have tabled amendments to this legislation so I thought it would be rather impertinent of me to table amendments without addressing any of the issues in a Second Stage speech.

I welcome this development and compliment the Minister of State on producing such a distinct Bill because anything that increases harmony in industrial relations is to be welcomed. There are a number of areas where matters need to be tidied up. I have been advised on that in correspondence by various people, including a well-known firm of solicitors, so I tabled these amendments. The Minister of State is in agreement with some of them because that was contained in the correspondence between the solicitors and the Minister of State. He seemed to think there were arguments here and there, so I look forward to teasing that out on Committee Stage.

In terms of the issues, they are technical, such as the address. People do not always put down a correct address. Therefore, we have to stabilise the address to ensure we have certainty in terms of knowing what we are dealing with in terms of who, what and where. There is also the question of the employer giving the full name of the company. Sometimes they do not do that, and we need to establish clearly the legal entity that is involved in these proceedings.

There is then the question of various representatives who are not solicitors or senior counsel. They are representatives for gain and they advertise and so on. They may not be regulated or subject to the same codes of practice and conduct as barristers, solicitors and so on. I am tabling an amendment, as advised, to cover that to make sure that people who legitimately represent interests at court should be subject to the same regulations. They must be subject to the same code of practice.

The appointment of the position of registrar is left fairly vague in the legislation so I tabled an amendment governing the appointment and suggesting that the person involved should have a number of years of professional practice to qualify him or her for that job.

There is a fine of €2,000 but I am tabling an amendment suggesting that should be increased to €20,000 in the case of failure to pay the national minimum wage. That is a substantial amount but it should be a real disincentive to people who are inclined not to pay. This is based on the United Kingdom model and what they have recently introduced. It is one of the areas where we could usefully follow the UK. I have been critical in the past of the fact that, very often in terms of our legislative procedures, we took down what Westminster had done and stuck it into law here, but there are moments when the United Kingdom experience is a useful one.

There is also the question of the production of documentation, and being a fairly litigious person I know the significance of that because I have battled on both sides. I have demanded documents from the other side, and I am still doing so in a series of libel cases, which I have every intention of winning, and when they come looking for documents I will say: "Not on your nelly. You are not getting a smell of these documents. You can take me to court." The production of documents is an integral part of that. It also speeds up the process. If there is a series of hearings, one sometimes hears that they do not have this or that document. If there is a requirement to produce documents at an early stage, this will speed things up.

On the question of whether the hearings are held in public or in private, it is a useful practice to hold these hearings in public. That would generally be the situation, but there may be circumstances where both parties agree that, for a variety of reasons, holding them in private is the best option. If they are both agreed on that, I do not see why it should not be provided for.

Coming back to the question of people who are not solicitors or barristers but just representatives for gain, they are unregulated in terms of fees and so on. They are entitled to charge percentage fees, contingency fees and champerty, all of which are illegal for a solicitor. I want to bring them in under the same codes of practice as exist for solicitors.

There are a number of other technical amendments but I mention two of them. One is the question of the appointment of extra members in cases. For example, in cases where there is a conflict of interest with one of the members there should be a possibility to appoint from a pool of reserve members. We have tabled an amendment which provides for that.

There is also the question of amending the Organisation of Working Time Act because it states that penalising somebody should be an offence but I want to add to that "penalise or threaten to penalise" because the threat of a penalty against an employee is in some circumstances as severe as the actual penalising. If someone says to somebody that they must do something, not do something, accept such a wage or the consequences will be such and such, the very threat itself is inimical to good workplace relations. That is included in some recent legislation including the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, so there is a precedent for that.

I have not made a very wide-ranging speech but rather indicated to the Minister of State the areas on which I have tabled amendments. I look forward to teasing them out and arguing them in substance when the Bill comes before the House again.