Mary Harney
Question:7 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment if he will report on his meetings with the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland in relation to the organisation of working time legislation. [6203/97]
Other Questions. - Organisation of Working Time Legislation.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland did not seek a meeting with me or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment on the organisation of working time legislation. However, at the request of the chamber, an officer of my Department provided a meeting of its members with a briefing on the organisation of working time directive on 8 November 1996. The purpose of that meeting was to inform the chamber about the contents of the directive and the likely contents of the Bill. Neither at that meeting nor subsequently did the chamber convey to me or my officials the serious concerns conveyed by it on 20 January 1997 to the Select Committee, on Enterprise and Employment. Following the publication of that letter, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, suggested that the chamber meet with him and myself to discuss any concerns it may have about the legislation.
That meeting took place yesterday and the Government's position on the working time legislation, having particular regard to the amendments introduced on Committee Stage, was fully explained to the chamber representatives.
Given that over 60,000 people are employed in over 400 American companies, it seems extraordinary that the Minister did not immediately seek a meeting with the chamber when the letter was sent to the committee. It seems rather irrelevant to have met it yesterday when the Bill has already gone through Committee and the Government has clearly closed its mind to any change. In the light of yesterday's meeting, will there be any changes to the Bill on Report Stage, particularly in relation to the opt-out clause?
We had a very constructive meeting yesterday. The chamber did not seem to understand that the Bill contains a substantial amount of deregulation and repealing of laws going back to the 1930s making it less onerous than the existing employment law. This seemed to be misunderstood by some of the chamber representatives. They did not seek additional changes on any specific issues in the legislation. I am happy that we had a very constructive meeting and that there is now a greater understanding by the American Chamber of Commerce of precisely what the legislation contains.
The chamber said strongly in its letter to the committee that the lack of flexibility regarding the opt-out clause will have "a negative effect" on direct American investment into Ireland. Is that still its position or has it drawn back from that?
The Minister and I had a number of meetings with individual American multinational companies for which the American Chamber of Commerce is a representative organisation. Prior to the publication of the Bill these companies did not express concern about the opt-out clause. They had concerns about record keeping and about people who determine their own working hours, which have been addressed on Committee Stage. They were concerned also about double employment. The new legislation is a modification of the law which has been in existence since 1936.
On the question of the opt-out clause, only 6 per cent of Irish employees currently work in excess of those working hours, and these are not employees of the multinational companies. It does not represent a problem for the multinational companies because, when working hours are averaged out over the year, they are able to meet seasonal demands. Subsequent to the publication of the legislation one multinational company expressed some concern about phasing in and start-ups. We have addressed that in an amendment which was adopted after detailed discussions with both the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and IBEC on the phasing in of the full requirements of the legislation. I am satisfied that meets the point of concern in question.
Is the Minister saying that the American Chamber of Commerce has changed its position as set out in its submission to the committee which stated that for its member companies the most controversial provision of the Organisation of Working Time Bill, 1996 was the imposition of the maximum 48 hour working week on employees without allowing for relief under the opt-out clause? Is the Minister saying that this element of its submission, which we received during Committee Stage, was withdrawn by the delegation that met her and the Minister or that it was not referred to? Given that there are 400 companies involved, this is a crucial factor, and it is also a very important issue in the context of the competitive advantage of Irish industry.
We had a discussion earlier about the Norman Croke report on the tourism industry. He makes the point that 20 per cent of people in that industry work between 51 and 80 hours a week. There is, therefore, a particular concern, which I know the Deputy shares, about excessive working hours which may put workers' health at risk. We had detailed discussions with multinational firms about this directive and the legislation before the publication of the Bill. The 48 hour rule was not a concern. The American Chamber of Commerce, in discussions with us yesterday, said that one of its concerns was the appearance of lack of flexibility, and that it would not be able to meet seasonal peaks and demands. However, when we went through individual points with it its perception that there was a lack of flexibility was based on a misunderstanding of the provisions in the Bill which allow an averaging over four months of the 48 hour rule, an averaging over six months for all seasonal businesses, and an averaging over 12 months which is available to any company which concludes a collective agreement to that effect with its workforce. The chamber misunderstood the provisions, and we were happy to be able to put its mind at rest. The sector which it represents is not a sector which, generally speaking, works very long hours. It was more a question of its perception of inflexibility. We were able to assure it that far from being inflexible this Bill is an extremely flexible instrument, that we are availing of the opportunities in the directive to be flexible, and that we are engaging in a substantial amount of deregulation of very prescriptive labour laws going back to the 1930s introduced by the Deputy's party which was in Government at the time and which have no application in the modern age. For example, my Department receives between 12 and 14 inquiries a week because technically under the 1936 conditions of employment Act I as Minister or my staff to whom I would delegate responsibility must endorse it every time there is a change of shift pattern by a company. That very inflexible working arrangement is being repealed in the Organisation of Working Time Bill.
There has been a misunderstanding. The Minister and I had a very useful opportunity yesterday to alleviate the concerns expressed about inflexibility, and the chamber said that its main concerns were ones of perception.
Those influential organisations were making submissions at an early stage. We were aware at an early stage that the UK and France would opt out. We are competing with the economies of the Far East, for example, Vietnam, Malaysia and other such countries. The contribution made by American industrialists to this island is very strong, and I am strongly convinced that if we do not agree to the opt-out clause we will have difficulty creating jobs. The genuine concern that exists is well documented and must be addressed. Everyone I meet is concerned, and the Minister is not addressing it.
The Bill is based on a partnership approach which has served this country well. This country has a very good package to offer to foreign companies choosing to invest here, and they are choosing to invest here in record numbers.
They were.
In contrast to the period when Deputy Harney's colleague was in charge of the Department of Enterprise and Employment when we were losing jobs at the rate of 67 a day, over the past two years this Government has created 100,000 additional jobs in the economy. Since this Bill was published 11,000 new jobs have been announced as a result of inward investment because they find this a very attractive and flexible place to do business. That flexibility is based on the skill of our highly educated and very adaptable workforce which contributes of its best during normal working hours. This is a very good place to do business and that is why we have the best performing economy in Europe.