When I was last in possession we had cast our minds back to why there was a need for legislative changes in this area. It was outlined by most speakers both in this House and in the Seanad that, given the political "military" climate that prevails in Northern Ireland and which often spills over to the South and with the involvement of gangster and criminal elements, there was great difficulty in moving large sums of money from point A to point B and that, therefore, the Bill should be welcomed because it would allow payment to be made to manual workers other than by cash.
While I agree that the situation is of concern and that we should update our legislation, the legislation before us is rushed in so far as it does not take on board the submissions which have been made to the Minister or address satisfactorily the negative effects of its implementation on workers and their families. It is important to record that the legislation we are seeking to amend is essentially excellent and it was sound legislation in the period in which it was initiated. It was recognised as far back as 1464 that legislation was necessary to protect people who were engaged in the selling of their labour to employers. Every time legislation was brought forward subsequent to 1464 — in 1743 and 1896—the unscrupulous employers kept running ahead of the legislation and changing the circumstances of the method of payment of their workers. We all know that as far back as 1464 the workers were paid by produce, presumably produce off the land and the mills they may have worked in; it was a payment in kind as opposed to cash payment. It was recognised that something had to be done to protect the method of payment. Subsequently legislation was introduced to protect workers who were in receipt of subs. Prior to subbing, the method engaged in by employers was that the company store sold at exorbitant rates produce which was often inferior to the workers who were in employment either in mines, big farms or wherever they were located, as part payment of wages, so that the legislation had to be changed to catch up with these nasty employers who were underselling their workforce.
We arrived at a stage where the legislation had to be changed to offset the negative effects of huge interest charges being made by unscrupulous employers on moneys given to the workers in the form of a sub. As a former building worker I am aware that the method of collecting subs from an employer was certainly a common day occurrence. The first thing many manual workers did arriving at building sites, in the sixties and seventies, was to go to the employer and seek a sub payment that would tide them over the week they worked. I am not aware of interest charges to workers as late as the sixties and seventies but obviously that was something that happened in the past and had to be addressed.
Essentially, what I am saying is that all legislation we are about to amend today was legislation for the protection of the workforce. When we look back to 1460, 1743 and 1890 and right up to 1990 and the Payment of Wages Bill, 1991, which is before the House, one has to question the intent of the Bill. The intent of the Bill was very clear from the Minister's presentation both in the Seanad — where the Bill was introduced — and here in the Dáil and from the speeches of Members from the various political parties. In summary, it is my understanding that the presentation has been made on the basis that in the nineties it is difficult to ship large sums of money from point A to point B. An extra charge is imposed on employers because of extra insurance costs and an extra charge for the cost of conveying the money from banks through city streets. I take it that the term "manual worker" means particularly a tradesman and in the building industry. Because of the cost of servicing the transfer of large sums of money, the employers obviously have put pressure on the Minister and the Government to change the rules.
I said at the outset that we are not opposed to the changing of the rules. If huge sums of money will be saved for the employers, then we had better look at the implications for the employees and whether there will be negative effects for the employees who are forced to accept payment other than in cash. I would argue that there are major disincentives for workers to accept payment in a form other than cash. One of the major reasons for the reluctance of the organised workforce to accept any other form of payment is based on personal and historic experiences, the insecurity in particular in the building industry and the fear that perhaps payment in cheque form might not be honoured. Many manual workers are paid on an hourly basis and need instant access to cash for their own needs and those of their family. That worker needs instant access to cash so that the gas and ESB bills can be paid. Indeed, many working class families still operate a tick system with the local shop which often allows the bill to be paid at the end of the week.
When speaking in the Seanad I think the Minister compared this country to Denmark in this regard, where 90 per cent of the workforce are paid by a method other than in cash. I do not know the reasons for this, maybe there is better legislative protection for the worker. I cannot compare this country with Denmark because I do not know how the system operates there. We should try to find out why the workforce in Denmark accept payment other than in cash. Is there a degree of compulsion? The Minister has not adequately addressed the reluctance of the Irish workforce to accept non-cash payments.
The Minister has not taken the reservations of Irish workers in this regard into account. One reason could be the schedule of charge for customers of the AIB and Bank of Ireland. If a worker is forced to accept a cheque payment he, presumably, is obliged to open a bank account. However, that involves a huge range of charges for which the Minister has not included compensation for the worker. Charges include 17p for an automated transaction, between 14p and 17p on each cheque which is cashed and £3 per annum for a cheque card. There is also a payment of 7p per cheque in Government tax. Employers would make huge savings if workers were paid by cheque, in insurance and in the cost of transferring money from the banks to building sites or factories, but it is legitimate to ask why the savings should all go to the employer with apparently no benefit to the workforce. Indeed, there are penalties involved for workers.
Subsequent to speaking here the last time we debated the Bill, I received correspondence from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions which is on the lines of what I initially intended to bring up. They said they are extremely concerned at the failure of the Bill to address a number of key issues, in particular the failure to provide a statutory right to workers to time off to cash cheques or orders and to provide that additional costs, i.e. bank charges, and so on be borne by the employer. They said — and I agree — that these constitute a major defect in the Bill.
What would happen if workers in rural areas were obliged to accept payment in cheque, money order or some other form other than in cash? In some areas a travelling bank makes a periodic appearance and in other areas there is no banking service whatsoever. How does the Minister propose to encourage employers, even in an urban area like Dublin, to facilitate workers to transact business in the bank given the hours which operate in banks at present? It will be impossible for someone working from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. to cash a cheque. I disagree with Deputy Shatter who said that this was great legislation because most workers have bank accounts and, therefore, should be happy to be paid by cheque. There is a difference in the lifestyle of TDs, who have access to a decent wage, professional people and ordinary working people. Many workers do not have a bank account and, incidentally, there is no reference in the Bill to credit unions whose members comprise most of the workers engaged in manual or unskilled labour. I ask the Minister to take on board the reservations expressed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I will not labour the point but I should like to reiterate my reservations in relation to this Bill. While the legislation is good, we must be realistic and recognise that Ireland in the nineties as far as security is concerned is not the Ireland of long ago. There are problems of security in relation to the transfer of cash. The massive savings to employers should mean that some benefits will also accrue to workers. I hope the Minister will address the question of banking hours and the difficulties of workers who do not have a bank account.