Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are cognate on amendment No. 1 and it is suggested therefore that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be debated together.
National Standards Authority of Ireland Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 13, lines 3 and 4, to delete "the word `Caighdeán', or the word `Standard'," and substitute "the words `Caighdeán Éireannach' or the words `Irish Standard"'.
The House will recall that I undertook on Committee Stage to re-examine sections 25, 26 and 27. These sections repeat sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961, and were included in that Act to ensure that persons could not imply, by the simple registration of a name, business name, trademark or design, that their company's products sold or manufactured by them, were produced to any particular standard in an effort to deceive the public.
Deputy O'Rourke stated on Committee Stage that the use of the word "standard" is commonplace and cited company names which include it. I accept the point made by the Deputy in that regard. The risk of deception, albeit small, still exists and I propose retention of the sections. However, having regard to the common usage of the word "standard" I propose an amendment to sections 25, 26 and 27 which will clarify the sections and retain their intent. I propose therefore that the registration of the words "Irish standard", or "Caighdeán Éireannach", or the initials CE or IS, or a name which nearly resembles any such words or initials so as to be likely to deceive will be prohibited.
This debate arose on Committee Stage because the original terminology dates back to the 1961 Bill. At that time we did not have standards in the sense in which it is implied in this Bill. I accept the Minister has moved to obviate any difficulty or any attempt at duplicity which may arise by the inclusion of this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 13, lines 9 and 10, to delete "the word `Caighdeán' or the word `Standard' " and substitute "the words `Caighdeán Éireannach' or the words `Irish Standard' ".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 13, lines 15 and 16, to delete "the word `Caighdeán' or the word `Standard' " and substitute "the words `Caighdeán Éireannach' or the words `Irish Standard' ".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 15, line 6, to delete "an order" and substitute "regulations".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 15, line 7, to delete "the" where it secondly occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 is out of order. It is merely descriptive in nature and is not regarded as an amendment.
In regard to the correspondence from you, a Cheann Comhairle, dated 4 July informing me that my amendment cannot be moved because it is merely descriptive, I would have thought if it were descriptive it would be helpful. I genuinely do not know the reason the amendment cannot be moved.
My office is of the opinion an amendment is not required here but if it is agreed by the House, the words can be included. There is no need for an amendment.
If it is helpful and agreeable to the House, I have no objection to the inclusion of the words proposed by Deputy O'Rourke.
It is only a heading to place in the format of the Bill and is not deemed an amendment. If the House wishes to include that description in the Bill, that is quite in order.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. All the correspondence has led to something.
The descriptive amendment can be included.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 15, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"PART VI
STAFF".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 15, to delete lines 46 to 49, and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 3.
When this amendment was debated on Committee Stage I dealt with it in considerable detail because I believe the lines I am seeking to delete are not in line with the normal process of industrial relations. In that respect I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. The thrust of my argument is that there has not been full consultation in regard to the Bill with the trade union and staff representatives. There is an obvious fear among the staff that changes will occur and that there will be a worsening of conditions of employment because, for the first time, we are copperfastening in legislation temporary modes of employment. I accept the Minister of State has instructed that some positions be changed from temporary to permanent but that poses a real dilemma for the trade union involved in that some of its members will enter the promised land while others will be forever in temporary employment. I am happy for those who will enter permanent employment, having been in temporary employment, but I urge the Minister of State to look at this matter again. We are told this is being included in the Bill because we must conform to EU regulations in regard to accreditation, but a letter from the German construction committee indicates that its federal Government is not dancing in this respect to the tune of the accreditation demanded by the EU. In fact, the opposite is the case. In that correspondence the committee has shown quite clearly that this is a matter of domestic responsibility. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment on the basis that the wording in this section is not in line with standard industrial relations practice.
I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister of State to ensure the Bill has the full support of the staff. A problem still exists, however, in regard to section 38 (1) (b). I ask the Minister to outline the reason for the inclusion of this section. Is he aware of staff concerns about the inclusion, for the first time, of contract work in the Bill? I welcome the fact that approximately 38 people — perhaps the Minister will give us the exact number — will be made permanent but is there any way those staff members could be made permanent before the establishment day? The staff acknowledge there will always be contract employees in the organisation but I ask the Minister to address the two outstanding elements, namely, making staff permanent before the establishment day and the possibility of deleting the contract element referred to in section 38 (1) (b), even at this late stage. Will the Minister give his views on these matters?
The effect of the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Rourke would be to excise fully from the Bill the only provision relating to the contract staff currently employed in the NSAI. Such excision would not be in the best interests of the staff concerned. Its inclusion recognises their existence and regularises their position vis-à-vis the new Authority. The nature of the functions of the NSAI is such that there will always be fluctuations in demand for its services. There has been a great demand in recent times for registration to the ISO 9000 series of quality management system standards and, while it is considered that demand for registration to those standards has reached a plateau, continuous assessment of registered companies is necessary. I confirm that a large number of staff currently on contract will be made permanent if the Bill is passed and the NSAI is accredited by the National Accreditation Board as fulfilling all the requirements of an independent certification body.
It is anticipated that demand for other NSAI standards and certification schemes will continue to grow, particularly in relation to environmental management — the IS310 series. There is potential for additional permanent employment opportunities in the authority. Rather than perpetuate the concept of contract or temporary employment in semi-State companies, this section gives rights, recognises contracts and ensures that NSAI will continue to accept those contracts. Accordingly, the amendment proposed cannot be accepted.
I accept Deputy O'Rourke's and Deputy Sean Ryan's acknowledgment that I have tilted the balance of this Bill since we started to such an extent that the concerns and requests made to me by the trade union representing the staff concerned and staff representatives have been met. The issue has been narrowed to the contract staff. It is untrue there was not full consultation, as Deputy O'Rourke said. Rarely in my experience has there been more consultation. We should have enacted this Bill at least three months ago, but I, not my officials, was responsible for the delays. Time and time again after meeting the staff, I sent the officials back to research arguments advanced by the staff representatives. There has been exhaustive consultation.
Deputy O'Rourke also said that conditions are worsening. However, that is not true. There is a significant advance in conditions which would not normally be accepted in these circumstances. I cannot and I do not want to deal with Deputy Sean Ryan's query about the number of staff who will be offered permanent contracts because I am not dealing with industrial relations issues. There are 52 temporary or contract staff in the organisation as it now exists, which is a high proportion of staff. I have made it clear to the NSAI that it is not a good situation — I accept the argument about fluctuations — and that once this Bill is enacted it will not be desirable for such a high proportion of people to continue as temporary staff.
While I do not want to trade numbers with Deputy Seán Ryan or engage in negotiations in this House, which is the function of the trade union concerned and the management, a substantial number of existing contract people will be offered permanent employment for the first time. That is as it should be. As a result, these people will have security of tenure which they could not look forward to before. I have also made it clear that as a result of the projected workload of the authority, it is likely that an additional number of the remaining people will be made permanent in the future. I also want to make it clear, in case I am misleading anyone, that there will always be a demand for a small number of contract staff because that is the nature of the business. That has never been challenged during any of the discussions I have had with the staff. They accept there could be an optimum number of permanent staff yet, because of the workload, there will be a demand for contract staff with the requisite expertise.
It is untrue there will not be full consultation or that conditions will worsen — there is a significant enhancement of conditions. Deputy O'Rourke said that for the first time we were giving expression in law to the concept of contract staff. I do not know if that is true but it is important to acknowledge the existence of these staff, to protect them and to ensure that the contracts of those who are not offered permanent posts continue. I am happy that will be the smaller number of the two. However, it is important that they do not find themselves out of work on Monday morning or whenever the operative date of this legislation is. I hope that answers Deputy Seán Ryan's query.
It would not help if I became involved in the nitty-gritty arguments about the number of people who will be made permanent. I am pleased that so many people will become permanent as a result of this legislation. I do not deny the staff's right to make representations to whomever they wish, but I ask them to acknowledge that if there was a different Minister in this position, they might not have made the same progress. It is a significant improvement and I hope the staff will acknowledge that, as Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Seán Ryan have done.
I and Deputy Seán Ryan acknowledge the change in status for some of the staff. My argument was based on two points. We are recognising contract temporary employment in legislation. Some members of the staff representative group will become permanent while others will not. As trade unionists, we know that is an invidious position in which to put people.
The Minister concentrated on what he has done, which we acknowledge. However, if democracy had not dictated that staff representatives could meet anyone in an elected assemply to put their points of view, which they did, would we have been so successful? Perhaps we should praise democracy rather than the Minister's efforts. Government and Opposition have an important role to play. It is important that the Opposition is alert and willing to meet people who want to express a point of view, which we can then incorporate in legislation. This progress, where some members were made permanent, involves both Government and Opposition.
The Minister accepted some of my amendments which he encapsulated in his amendments on Committee Stage. I stick by my amendment but rather than pressing it to a vote now I will call one at the end of the debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 16, line 12, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
I tabled this simple amendment on Committee Stage and said that I would table it again on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to accept it.
I acceded to the Deputy's request and got the advice of the parliamentary draftsman on the impact of the proposed substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall" in section 38 (2). I was advised that this is not acceptable on the grounds that there must be provision for a final arbiter. If there is disagreement between Forfás and the staff of NSAI as regards their terms and conditions which cannot be resolved between the two bodies the matter would be decided by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. They are responsible for all matters relating to the staffing and financing of the Authority and decisions taken in that context are open to judicial review. The parliamentary draftsman gave an adamant response to Deputy O'Rourke's request. In his adamant view there must be a final arbiter and it is not intended that the Minister would intrude on the process earlier than would be necessary for finality. If the normal process of consultation and so on resolves the issue, so be it. If the industrial relations machinery must be resorted to and it resolves the process, that is to be welcomed, but there must be finality. The Minister for Finance has the ultimate responsibility and in the view of the draftsman the technical framing of the section is as it should be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 16, line 29, to delete "consultation" and substitute "negotiation".
I raised this matter on Committee Stage and said I would table an amendment on Report Stage. We all appreciate that there is a world of difference, a large chasm, between the word "consultation" and the word "negotiation". Because of the issues involved and the strength of the case I put forward, I ask the Minister of State to accept "negotiation". "Conclusion" is like "consumer and consensus" which are meant to induce cosiness and warmth and signify that something is being done and views are being taken on board, but consultation often ends in a decision being taken that reflects the views of only one side. "Negotiation" is clearly understood to mean the trading of points of views and arrangements until a negotiated settlement is reached. That is why I put forward "negotiation" to replace "consultation". Negotiations are in the ambit of trade relations and staff representatives putting forward their views. Consultations usually take place in circumstances where jobs and conditions are not at issue and usually involve the exchange of views and arriving at a consensus of opinion. "Negotiation" is a stronger word with a deeper meaning which invokes rights being traded for rights. I ask the Minister of State who has a long experience of negotiations on trade union matters to recognise the veracity of what I am saying and to accept the word "negotiation". It would give the staff some crumb of comfort to know they would have a right to negotiation.
I support Deputy O'Rourke's amendment. The word "consultation" is rather passive in the context of the Bill, particularly in view of the many concerns expressed about the staffing of the agency. The word "negotiation" would be more proactive and would admit that there would be a more active role for the trade unions and staff associations concerned. "Consultation" is rather vague and implies that one will consult with someone, but one may not accept what is said, whereas "negotiation" implies that different points of view are exchanged and there is an active sense of people debating the course to be embarked upon. The term "negotiation" is preferable in the circumstances, particularly in regard to the Authority.
Deputy O'Rourke is into alliteration this morning. The words "consultation, consumer, consensus and cosiness" rhyme effortlessly.
All the "C" words.
Deputy O'Rourke proposes to replace "consultation" with "negotiation" in section 38 (5) of the Bill. That is unacceptable as the final decision must rest with the Minister. Consultation covers all necessary and proper involvements with unions and staff representatives. The amendment is unnecessary.
The word "consultation" as it appears in the Bill is intended to encompass the nature of the relationship that Deputy O'Rourke advocated in terms of normal trade union industrial relation practices. If the House considers that there is a material difference in the signal that we would send out to the staff in terms of comfort to be secured from the word "negotiation" rather than the word "consultation", I am open to being persuaded on this.
I was interested to hear the Minister's view on the amendment. We are seeking to strengthen the Bill to make its provisions clear cut. I would favour the word "negotiation" rather than "consultation" because consultations give the impression that discussions or meetings are a consultative process and such a term would not give trade unions or worker representatives the same recognition as the management or the Minister. I ask the Minister to reconsider accepting the word "negotiation" as it would strengthen the Bill and would be more acceptable.
May I intervene before Deputy O'Rourke concludes?
I have the right to speak again to my amendment.
I may not call the Minister again, as we are on Report Stage.
I just wished to give some information to Deputy O'Rourke on consultation and negotiation. If the view of the House is that Deputy O'Rourke's amendment ought to be accepted against the background we have discussed in terms of assuaging the feelings of staff and so on, I would be disposed towards accepting it.
The Minister said he was open to persuasion and would wait to hear further arguments. I thank Deputies Keogh and Seán Ryan for their support on this amendment. It may seem a small thing to have accepted, but I would be less than gracious if I did not thank the Minister. I am glad the word "negotiation" is to be included. The people concerned have a right to trade, which is what negotiation is about, and the inclusion of the word "negotiation" will go some way to assuage the very deep anxieties of some staff members about this Bill. On the basis that the Minister has agreed to accept this amendment, which in a small way encapsulates many of my concerns, my party will not press a vote on the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I take this opportunity of thanking the House for their co-operation in facilitating the passage of the Bill and, in particular, to thank the spokespersons from the Opposition parties, Deputies O'Rourke, O'Keeffe and Keogh.
I am inclined to agree with the argument that the process of scrutiny of the Bill has improved the ultimate product, and it probably is better legislation. I ought not to let go unremarked Deputy O'Rourke's contention that the changes I made were as a result of the democratic process alone. I again make the point that as a result of detailed attention to staff concerns I made changes that had nothing to do with what transpired in the House. I draw attention, for example, to the decision to give representation on the board to the staff concerned. That was not a demand made to me by the staff. It was not a demand made by the staff to the other parties in the House or to my own party, but it is an important acknowledgement of the role of the staff. In an organisation like this where a high proportion of the staff are professional people who have valuable insights into the work of the Authority, it is right that they should be enabled to make their views known where it is most important. Even if it has taken us somewhat longer than might be ideal, the Bill is a good one.
I thank colleagues for their co-operation and sincerely hope that in the process we have managed to assuage the fears and concerns of the staff, and that the high reputation they have established for the quality of their own work and for the reputation of the authority will continue. It provides a very important service and has an enhanced reputation in terms of its ability to raise work and fees outside the normal State subvention. I hope this legislation will strengthen that reputation in the years ahead.
Before we all get swallowed up in this cosy, comfortable consensus, my fears remain very strong that there are perks in this Bill for the chiefs and not so many for the Indians. That was one of the reasons for my distrust of it. I am glad there have been some useful drafting changes, particularly where parts of Bills from 1961 were lifted without regard to the fact that in 1996 terminology and words have taken on new meanings. The changes made in relation to some staff members were good. I very much regret that there is not a commitment to make all staff members permanent. I hope the active use of the word "negotiation" will lead to further changes in that regard. I hope the subsequent negotiations will be conducted in the spirit of the Minister's acceptance of the use of that word.
I welcome the passing of this Bill. I appreciate the amount of work that went into making it a more acceptable Bill, particularly in relation to the fears expressed about staffing. On the issue of contract workers, I did not intervene on the amendment tabled by Deputy O'Rourke, but more and more often we are coming across contract work rather than what might be termed full long-term employment. It is something that needs to be scrutinised. In terms of this Authority. I hope we will not see a bias in favour of larger numbers of contract workers. I welcome the passage of the Bill because it is important to address management standards in our society and in business generally.
I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment and his officials on having consulted me and the authority staff on their fears. While acknowledging they did not obtain everything they had hoped for, they recognise, as I do, that major improvements have been effected to the Bill as originally presented.
We hear much about democracy and the operations of this Parliament. Many former Ministers adopted a very rigid attitude to Bills they presented here irrespective of the merits of any case advanced by the Opposition. Therefore, I am all the more pleased to compliment the Minister of State on having consulted and accepted views presented to him leading to constructive amendments of the original Bill.
I listened attentively to the views expressed by the Minister of State to the proposed management of the new authority in regard to casual and contract workers, since past experience proved back-to-back contracts were generally unacceptable. I hope the Minister's views will be seriously considered in the course of the many negotiations following the authority's establishment.
Quite improperly I omitted to thank my officials who have worked on the Bill very patiently and assiduously in respect of which I should like to record my appreciation.
Question put and agreed to.