As the Minister's amendment meets largely the proposal in my amendment, I do not intend pressing the amendment in my name, but I would just make the point that in most cases wages and salaries are calculated by means of computer and, presumably, it would be relatively easy to include on a payslip a breakdown of deductions. However, I am sure that is something that can be arranged locally.
Private Business. - Payment of Wages Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 17:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 43 to 45, to delete all the words from "to the employee" in line 43 to the end of the subsection and substitute ", or cause to be given, to the employee a statement in writing indicating the gross amount of the salary or wages payable and the nature and amount of the deduction, and in case such a statement is so given, the employer concerned shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates, and the statement before it is given to the employee, are treated confidentially".
—(Minister for Labour.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, before section 7, to insert the following new section:
"7.—(1) Notwithstanding this or any other enactment but subject to subsection (2) of this section
(A) a term or condition of an, agreement, between an employer (or group of employers) and an employee (or his trade union), providing that wages or salaries will not be paid, or sought, in cash shall be valid whether or not the agreement was in force before the coming into effect of this section,
(B) employers may, if they so wish, require employees first employed after the coming into effect of this section, to agree to a term or condition of employment providing for the payment of wages or salaries in a non-cash mode as defined by this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section no term or condition of an agreement shall be valid:
(a) during a cessation of normal banking services (or other relevant cashing service as the case may be) in proximity of the employment, for any reason whatsoever and
(b) unless there is adequate banking, or other cashing service within convenient proximity of the normal place of employment, as defined by regulations made under subsection (3) of this section.
(3) (a) The Minister may, for the purposes of subsection (2) (b) of this section, make regulations specifying the proximity and level of a banking or other cashing service (as the case may be) required so that employees have no reasonable grounds for complaint.
(b) Regulations made under this subsection may be of general or localised or special application as the Minister deems fit in each case.
(4) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed be either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(5) (a) The Minister shall within one year of the enactment of this Act make an order bringing into effect the provisions of this section.
(b) Where an order under this section is proposed to be made, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
This amendment involves the deletion of the present section 7. The main purpose of the amendment is to make absolutely clear that if there is any doubt about legality with regard to practices already in existence whereby workers are paid by cheque or standing order, that doubt is now removed and they are now validated legally. That would be covered by subsection (1) (A) which states:
Notwithstanding this or any other enactment but subject to subsection (2) of this section
a term or condition of an agreement, between an employer (or group of employers) and an employee (or his trade union), providing that wages or salaries will not be paid, or sought, in cash shall be valid whether or not the agreement was in force before the coming into effect of this section,
That clears up any doubt regarding agreements already made and about whether they were in breach of existing legislation, particularly the Truck Acts. It also makes legal provision for future agreements between employers and trade unions. Paragraph (B) is wider in scope because it gives employers the power after the passing of this measure to require of new employees that they accept as a condition of employment cash remuneration in a non-cash mode, by cheque, standing order and so on. This will be subject to the provisions of subsection (2) (a) which states:
Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section no term or condition of an agreement shall be valid:
during a cessation of normal banking services (or other relevant cashing service as the case may be) in proximity of the employment, for any reason whatsoever and
This is very topical. The amendment provides for a situation that is not provided for to date, namely, when there is a bank strike or a bank closure for any reason. This happened last week and much inconvenience was caused. Indeed, if the strike had continued for another day or two there would have been a major problem and employers throughout the country would have experienced very considerable difficulty. Paragraph (a) will provide in general that where banking services cease for any reason employers will be obliged to pay by cash.
Paragraph (b) of the same subsection states:
unless there is adequate banking, or other cashing service within convenient proximity of the normal place of employment, as defined by regulations made under subsection (3) of this section.
This allows me an opportunity to make this point again. Obviously the Minister did not take the point I made last night, as was obvious from a remark he made later when he said that he and Deputy Ryan, both of whom are from rural constituencies, understand the problems faced by people trying to cash cheques in country areas. I had already made that point myself. Here we are making specific provisions to cover people who might not be near a bank or other cashing services. We are proposing to give the Minister power to make regulations to cover this matter. At the moment the people to whom I refer are not covered by any legislation and the Minister's proposals do not make any attempt to include them. Although they may not be many in number, there are some people who are paid by cheque or standing order and who live in the country in areas distant from banking services. The amendment I propose would cover people in that situation but it need not necessarily be confined to remote areas. It could also apply in city areas where payment may be made at a time when the banks are closed. There are many families in this city who cannot wait until the following day to cash their cheques because they need the money that day. I know that only too well from my own constituency. My amendment would cater for people in that situation also. It covers not only the question of the proximity of the service but also the level of banking or other cashing services. An employer might have a cash office, or a local postoffice could do the job. That is why I made provision for other cashing services because there are areas where there is a post office but no bank.
Here is a case where Fine Gael are showing concern for the rights of workers. We are trying to do something about the inconvenience to which workers are put. I ask the Minister to consider what I have said. I hope that subsections (1), (2) and (3) will be accepted.
Subsection (3) (a) states:
The Minister may, for the purposes of subsection (2) (b) of this section, make regulations specifying the proximity and level of a banking or other cashing service (as the case may be) required so that employees have no reasonable grounds for complaint.
This proposes to give the Minister powers to make regulations to minimise inconvenience to employees. It is important that the tension and the annoyance felt by workers in not getting their wages in cash should be minimised as much as possible. What I propose is one way to reduce that sense of annoyance.
Subsection (3) (b) states.
Regulations made under this subsection may be of general or localised or special application as the Minister deems fit in each case.
I am putting forward this provision because there may be special factors operating in different localities or in different work situations. Subsections (4) and (5) are put forward because we are following as a matter of policy the practice of inserting sections of this kind with regard to regulations and orders. In too many pieces of legislation there is a provision for orders which may be tabled and if they are not annulled within 21 days they become law.
We had the experience yesterday of being refused time to debate an order. That completely negatives the rights of Members of this House. This is the second time it has happened. Earlier this year time to debate an annulling order was not allowed by the Government. That is a serious encroachment on the rights and responsibilities of Members of the Oireachtas. That is why subsection (4) is included in the amendment although, on reflection, I would have preferred to put in a separate amendment. Governments generally tend to go for convenient measures. That is understandable, but it is not necessarily best for the people or the Government.
Subsection (4) of the amendment deals with regulations. It reads:
Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Subsection (5) of the amendment relates to orders. Paragraph (b) says, "...and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House." The Minister would be obliged to put down a motion seeking an affirmative decision rather than placing it on the Order Paper. On reflection I would have preferred to put subsections (4) and (5) in separate amendments. I hope the Minister will accept subsections (1), (2) and (3) at least of my proposed section 7.
Subsections (2) and (3) of Deputy Mitchell's amendment can be met by the flexibility of the Bill in that there is a right to opt out from cheque payments. When difficulties arise, such as banking disputes, we all know how awkard and embarrassing it can be if you have a cheque and cannot get cash for it. The worker is intelligent enough to decide, through his union or in agreement with his employer, in the knowledge of what he has suffered in bank disputes, to opt for a system which will suit him.
I want to make an important general remark about the consequences of Deputy Mitchell's proposed section 7. Acceptance of his amendment would involve the deletion of the existing section 7 of the Bill. Such a deletion would not be permissible since it would amount to an implied repeal of the Truck Acts. This is not the intention behind the Bill.
Section 1 of the Truck Act, 1831, entitled employees engaged in manual labour to be paid in cash. This entitlement is not altered in any way in this Bill. There is no authorisation from the Government to repeal the Truck Acts. I did not seek Government authorisation to repeal them, for various reasons which I outlined in my Second Stage speech. The central purpose of the Payment of Wages Bill is to effect an amendment to the Truck Acts in order to restore the payment of manual workers' wages by cheque or other non-cash method of payment to the position which obtained prior to the enactment of the Currency Act, 1927, which created an anomaly. The effect of what the Deputy is proposing would be totally unacceptable. That is not to say I have not considered the content of the amendment with a view to deciding whether or not account might be taken of it in a different way.
For the purpose of discussing the amendment I can leave aside subsections (4) and (5) because they are technical provisions. Subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment are inter-related and can be dealt with together. I want to deal with subsection (1) specifically. Paragraph (A), as drafted, will not get us anywhere. Basically it says that the agreement provides for wages not to be paid or sought in cash. It says nothing about the agreement having to specify some non-cash method of payment. In fact, it could pave the way for a return to payments in kind or in goods as it is open to that interpretation in law.
We must also remember that manual workers have a statutory right under the Truck Act, 1831, to be paid in cash. The fact that they might sign away that right does not deprive them of it. On paragraph (B), I must point out to the Deputy that its terms are against the whole philosophy of the Bill. Running right through the Bill is the fact that compulsion cannot be exerted. The employer or the employee or the trade union must agree freely to the use of a particular non-cash method of payment. The question of employer-trade union agreement has been adequately covered in the amendment I moved in section 3 (1), the terms of which were worked out in consultation with both sides of industry, with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers.
I have pointed out that subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment are interrelated. On subsection (3), the Minister for Labour has absolutely no functions in this matter. The banks decide where to set up their offices, with the Central Bank as their supervising authority. In some rural areas perhaps there are some difficulties about the non-cash method of payment but they are not widespread any more. They are much better served than they were in the past. We appear to be over-banked in comparison with other countries per head of population. For the most part the non-cash method of payment does not create difficulties.
I want to emphasise that the flexibility to which Deputy Ryan referred is important. Obviously, if there is some area of difficulty, there will be no agreement.
There is no necessity for the subsections suggested by the Deputy. The amendment to section 3 adequately covers the situation. The satisfactory discussions held with both sides of industry have ensured that the Bill adequately covers the situation. I do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment.
I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the amendment because I think it is important. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) are important. Subsection (1) is very important because it validates agreements already made which may be in breach of the Truck Acts.
Subsection (B) seeks to give employers the power to make it a condition of employment for new employees that they accept payment of wages by cheque or standing order provided that normal banking services are available.
The reason for the amendment is to protect life. Life is endangered by the handling of cash. If my amendment were accepted it would help to reduce the number of payroll robberies. The unnecessary movement of money from place to place leads to crime. The Minister's proposal removes any doubt as to the validity of agreements between employers and employees. It also gives individuals the right to withdraw from agreements. The main reason for my amendment is that the Bill increases the likelihood of danger to life. I hope that my predictions are not correct and that the Bill diminishes the danger to life. Having discussed this matter with many people, I am convinced that the provisions will only endanger workers' lives and lead to more robberies. As I said last night, the money taken in payroll raids is often used to create further violence. I am concerned with the workers who have to handle money. I have had to handle money and I know the fears of the workers and their families. They never know when a gun will be pointed at them.
I submit that my amendment is reasonable and is calling out for enactment.
We discussed this matter last night. This area is mainly a security area and is not related to my portfolio. Last night I said that the Bill was a major step forward and that it would encourage more and more employers and trade unions to reach agreement on non-cash modes of payment. The Deputy has been trying to introduce constraints which would only create more difficulties for all of us. The Deputy expressed doubt about the legality of existing agreements. I want to assure the Deputy that he need have no fears for the legality of existing agreements.
As I pointed out to the Deputy, I cannot accept his amendment.
I believe that the Bill is a major step backwards and that it will endanger life. What does the Bill relate to if it does not relate to the danger to life, limb and money? The Bill is a bank robbers' charter; it is an invitation to subversives and criminals.
The Minister said that I was trying to introduce constraints. My amendment would protect the interests of workers.
Because of its flexibility the Bill is more encouraging than compelling. Unfortunately, there will always be a need for the movement of cash. Unfortunately, there will always be a need to move cash and until such time as another Department are able to apprehend robbers there will always be a threat to cash in transit. I appreciate the concern of Deputy Mitchell for the lives and families of those involved in security and I appreciate the intelligence of workers who, because of the flexibility and other encouraging aspects of the Bill, will decide what they want. They know their difficulties.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, paragraph (a), to insert ", or to authorise another to sign on his behalf," before "a document" in line 19.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, paragraph (b), to insert "an instrument or" both before "a mode" in line 21 and before "a mode" in line 22.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, subsection (1), to insert "or mode of payment" after "instrument" in line 26.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22a:
In page 5, subsection (1), to insert "applies" after "Act" in line 26.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 5, subsection (1), after line 41, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) an employee shall be entitled to be reimbursed by his employer for such bank or similar charges which otherwise would not have been incurred.".
My amendment seeks to insert an additional clause and is in keeping with the case I put forward in relation to amendment No. 19. I am anxious to illustrate my concern for the rights of workers and facilitate, as far as possible, the paying of wages in a non-cash mode. I want to ensure that where an employee accepts payment into his bank account by standing order he will be compensated for the charges that may arise as a result.
For a number of reasons I am not prepared to accept this amendment. Section 6 ensures that any charges incurred by the employer in paying the wages of the employee by way of some agreed non-cash method of payment shall not be deducted from the employee's wages. The additional provision sought by Deputy Mitchell seems to be unreasonable and unworkable. It is unreasonable in the sense that bank charges may apply to any customer of the bank. Employees covered by the Truck Acts who freely agree to be paid by cheque or credit transfer should not be treated any differently. The suggestion is unworkable in the sense that it would be very difficult for the employer to gauge what amount of the employee's bank charges were incurred solely by reason of the payment of his wages by cheque, credit transfer or other non-cash method.
I should now like to deal with the possibility of charges being incurred by an employee. My information is that as far as the Associated Banks are concerned there is at present no charge for the lodgment of a cheque to a current or deposit account at any branch of the banks at the time of the lodgment. However, there is a half-yearly charge of about £1 but that is to cover all the transactions of the customer. It would cover much more than the charge, if any, that might be imposed for handling cheques or other modes of payment. If a credit transfer involves a transfer from one bank to another there is the optional charge, which is at the discretion of the bank official. The charge amounts to about 3p per lodgment but, apparently, that option is not taken up too often since the computer transaction to process it would cost about 20p. The Deputy need not worry on this score. The position is adequately covered and I have confidence in the trade unions, employers and employees being able to sort this matter out.
The banks do not want to lose on this matter.
The Minister did not cover the case of payment into a current account which involves an employee having to obtain a bank book which costs money. From personal experience I know that this has arisen. It has been an inhibiting factor in getting agreement to payment by cheque. The difficulty was overcome by a sensible local agreement. The Minister should consider this matter before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 44 to 49, to delete all the words in the subsection after "Act is declared" in line 44, and substitute the following:
"illegal) the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) neither—
(i) a payment made in pursuance of this Act by means of an instrument or mode of payment to which this Act applies, nor
(ii) the signing of a document in pursuance of section 3 of this Act,
shall be regarded as being a contract or a payment so declared illegal,
and
(b) a contract to which section I of the Act of 1831 applies shall not be regarded as being a contract so declared illegal by reason only of the fact that it incorporates or otherwise includes all or any of the terms contained in an agreement referred to in section 3 (1) of this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24a:
In page 6, subsection (3), lines 2 and 3, to delete "is either in force in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 3 of this Act" and substitute "described in subsection (1) of section 3 of this Act is in force".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 6, subsection (5), to insert "or mode of payment" after "instrument" in line 18.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
When is it proposed to take next Stage?
Now.
I should like to facilitate the Minister, but I did not have any notice of that.
Might I say to the Deputy that we have discussed Committee Stage. The amendments have been well thrashed out. There has not been any notice given by any Deputy of his intention to move amendments on Report Stage, so obviously there can be no such amendments. I do not have any amendments to propose and, in those circumstances, I would ask the Deputy to agree to take next Stage now.
I will agree but I would ask the Minister, if he is still the Minister next week—and I do hope he will be——
I thank the Deputy——
——to remember to let us know in future so that we will have advance notice. I do not mean any discourtesy.
I am not being discourteous in any way either, Deputy. I would not have pressed the point but I cannot now see any reason for amendments coming on Report Stage. For that reason I say to the House: why not take it now?
Well, if we do not, we might wait two years for these amendments.
Bill reported with amendments.
As there are no amendments on Report Stage, in accordance with Standing Orders we move to Fifth Stage.