I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (1) (h), line 34, to delete "Minister for Finance" and substitute "relevant trade unions and employers organisations".
Section 2, which we are discussing in the context of these amendments, provides for the various modes of payment of wages. Having gone through the various modes that apply in practical terms under our current financial systems and arrangements, the provision has an allembracing clause, paragraph (h), which states, in relation to the payment of wages, that:
any other mode of payment standing specified for the time being by regulations made by the Minister after consultation with the Minister for Finance.
The Minister has said rightly that technology is changing rapidly. Within a very short time there will be other methods of making payments that may not be covered by the specific references contained in section 2 (1). I suspect that in the not too distant future the concept of a cheque will be regarded as about as relevant to modern financial dealings as the unfortunate extinct dinosaur is relevant to the animals in the world of today. We are heading into an entirely new area. All of this will work only in the context of the way in which the various financial institutions and the banking system, through to the credit unions and retail outlets agree to designate the transference and the acceptance of moneys.
The Payment of Wages Bill is the product of a general agreement that has been reached as between the social partners. There are minor disagreements between Congress and the employers with regard to certain sections in the Bill but, in principle, all social partners are now agreed on the need for this legislation. The Minister has adopted a consultative rather than a confrontational approach, which is to be commended. He consults with the various groups throughout the economy and in particular with the relevant social partners, in the context of wages, to whom the legislation to be enacted will apply.
I was a little puzzled by paragraph (h). It is accepted that new modes of payment be taken on board by way of regulation rather than having to wait for time in this House to amend the legislation, but it seems that as the Bill is drafted the only person who needs to be consulted is the Minister for Finance. I cannot for the life of me see why it is the Minister for Finance who should be consulted about the type of order a Minister for Labour should make with regard to modes of payment of wages. The Minister for Labour is the relevant Minister in Government who deals with this area. Somewhere down the line there may be a Minister for Labour who does not believe in a consultative but in a confrontational approach and, indeed, there may be a Minister for Finance and a Minister for Labour who believe in a confrontational approach. It seems to me that a Minister for Labour who deems it desirable that other modes of payment be taken on board should not have to consult with the Minister for Finance exclusively. Presumably the Minister for Labour would bring a proposal to Cabinet and Cabinet would then agree to the proposal. It may be that the Minister for Finance in Cabinet may not want to go along with it but the Minister for Finance may be overruled in Cabinet by his colleagues and by the persuasive arguments of the Minister for Labour. We know that the present Minister for Labour, in his own modest way, can be a very persuasive personality and may, perhaps, go about things in a somewhat different way to the current Minister for Finance.
I would not want this to be interpreted as meaning that a Minister for Finance, for example, might have a veto on the use of new technology in the context of modes of payment. Although the Act does not give him a veto when he talks about consultation, behind the scenes in Cabinet it may be regarded as something that should not be done if the consent of the Minister for Finance is not forthcoming to taking on board a new mode of payment to which all the social partners were agreeable. It is my proposal that the Minister for Labour, should not, on the basis of how the Cabinet is supposed to operate, give some sort of special role or recognition to the Minister for Finance in this matter. The regulation should be made by the Minister for Labour but only after consultation with the relevant trade unions and employers organisations. I propose that we delete the reference to the "Minister for Finance" and insert instead "relevant trade unions and employers organisations". I think I am right in saying that Congress have expressed views on this and that they are anxious to have it included. Although I do not think it is in the FIE submission, I presume that they would also like to be consulted with regard to the implications for employers as a result of the Minister adopting a new mode. Of course, in some instances the relevant employers' organisations might not be covered by the FIE so I have not simply referred to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federation of Irish Employers, as Deputy Byrne has, although there is a similarity between my amendment and the amendment tabled by Deputy O'Sullivan.
I am conscious that there can be a degree of disharmony within unions and that there are still unions outside Congress. It may be necessary, particularly if the regulation here affected a particular sector with which Congress — for reasons which may be unrelated to this issue — had difficulties outside of Congress to put an obligation on the Minister of the day to consult the relevant trade unions and employers' organisations. I do not see why the Minister for Finance should be given a special role in this. It is a bit like the role we gave the Catholic Church until 1972 when we had a referendum on the issue.
I hope the Minister will consider taking this amendment on board in the spirit in which it is meant. I fully accept that the Minister would have consultations in regard to these regulations. Indeed if I had the good fortune to be sitting in his seat — and he had the ill-fortune to be in Opposition — it would also be my view that there should be consultations. However, there is a lacuna in the legislation in that the only obligation to consult applies to the Minister for Finance, who is the least relevant person in all this. The obligation to consult should rest with the social partners. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.