This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and it is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matter, therefore, that may be discussed is the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators, I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of those amendments.
Payment of Wages Bill, 1991 [Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question. I now call on the Minister.
The Bill was initiated in the Seanad on 23 May. The Bill as initiated was a good Bill but a few points raised by Senators gave a clear indication of some minor changes that might make it a better Bill. Taking the points raised in this House and in the Dáil, consultations with the parliamentary draftsman followed. As a result, I brought forward three substantive changes involving four Government amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The amendments were intended to address two concerns first raised by Senators as well as a further point which emerged in the Dáil. I also brought forward a couple of technical amendments on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. All six amendments were accepted in the Dáil on Committee Stage and I would like now to report to Senators on the purpose and effect of each amendment.
Amendment No. 1 on the list before the House relates to section 4(1) of the Bill. The section obliges employers to give to each of their employees a written statement of wages and deductions. The amendment arises from an issue identified by Senator Ó Cuív during the Second Stage debate and later taken up in the Dáil. The Senator pointed to the problem of pay statements which were so abbreviated as to render them virtually unintelligible.
I consulted with the parliamentary draftsman's office on this point and was advised that the provision as originally drafted placed an obligation on employers to provide their employees with a clear written statement of their wages and any deductions therefrom. However, in view of the concerns raised in both Houses, I secured from the parliamentary draftsman an amendment which places beyond doubt the intention of the provision — that a pay statement will clearly and specifically identify the gross amount of the wages as well as the nature and amount of each deduction. I trust that the amendment passed by the Dáil will satisfy the concerns of Senators also in this regard.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are technical amendments to section 5 (2) (iii) of the Bill. The parliamentary draftsman's office has advised me that the use of the word "concerned" in these two instances was unnecessary and that in the interest of precise drafting, the word should be deleted in both cases. These deletions, passed by the Dáil, have no material effect on the provisions concerned.
Amendment No. 4 replaces section 5 (2) (vii) as initiated. The subparagraph, as originally drafted set a time limit of six months within which an employer could make a deduction or deductions from wages in respect of an act or omission of the employee or the supply to the employee of any goods or services essential to the employment. An Opposition amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil proposed that the six month time limit should apply only to the first deduction where a series of related deductions was being made. Indeed, that Opposition amendment reminded me of a few instances which I have come across both in my capacity as a public representative and as a trade union activist, where employees had asked their employers to spread deductions over a long period so as to keep the weekly deductions from wages at a minimum. In most cases, the employers were willing to accommodate the employees' wishes in this way. Not wanting to inadvertently cast doubt on these voluntary arrangements designed for the convenience of all concerned, I sought a revised text from the parliamentary draftsman. The resulting Government amendment allows for collection by the employer of second and subsequent instalments of a particular deduction over a long duration but also requires that the deduction, or first instalment thereof, must be made by the employer within the six month period originally provided for in the Bill. I believe that the amendment passed by the Dáil provides desirable flexibility in regard to these particular kinds of deductions and I trust that Senators will agree.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 relate to the final substantive change made to the Bill as passed by this House. Amendment No. 5 is a technical amendment to section 5 (5) (f) and is necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 ensures that a deduction made from wages by an employer in compliance with an attachment of earnings order is outside the scope of the complaints procedure in the Bill. Section 5 (1) (a) of the Bill permits an employer to make a deduction from wages in accordance with a court order. It is the intention to exclude these deductions from the complaints procedure because, obviously, any complaint which an employee might have about the level, frequency etc. of an attachment of earnings order would be appropriate only to the court or tribunal that made the order.
This amendment is consequential on a fairly precise point relating to deductions from wages which Senator Fallon raised with me by letter. Following his representations, I consulted with the parliamentary draftsman and was advised that it would be unsafe to rely on section 5 (1) (a) together with section 5 (5) (c) to exclude this type of deduction from the complaints procedure. Accordingly, these Government amendments were proposed and passed by the Dáil. An important point to note is that these deductions are excluded from the Bill only if the employer deducts the amount required of him by the order. If he deducts a higher amount, the provisions of the Bill will apply and an aggrieved employee will have a right of complaint to a rights commissioner.
In conclusion then, I trust that Senators who, as evidenced by the speedy passage of the Bill through the House on 23 May last, were satisfied with the Bill as initiated, will, like me, see these amendments as improving already good legislation.
In substance my party supported this legislation on Second Stage because we think it is timely and, indeed, overdue that wages be paid in this fashion. There are a number of obvious reasons which we cited on Second Stage for this. On any pay evening we see massive queues of people outside bank branches in this city waiting to use the banking facility. The method of payment and regularisation of matters provided in the Bill should improve efficiency in this regard.
Amendment No. 1 which provides that wage slips be quite detailed, identifying all the deductions, is welcome and I have no difficulty in supporting it. That surely must enhance the legislation and is in the best interest of employees. The other amendments will also enhance the legislation and on that basis my party will not oppose them on Report Stage.
I was absent from the Second Stage debate when Senator Neville pointed out that Fine Gael have always been concerned about this area of legislation. This Bill should represent an improvement for employees and a more straightforward modus operandi for employers also. It is an advance and has much potential for the banking institutions. I hope they will meet the challenge it poses for them and that they will be responsive to the needs of the people who are dealing with them.
The point I am about to make now may be slightly irrelevant but I would ask you to bear with me because, while it has a tangential connection with this legislation, it is slightly irrelevant in the banking area. I was absolutely disgusted to read in yesterday's national newspapers that the ordinary banking institutions are delaying the implementations of interest rate cuts to the consumer after the Central Bank had introduced a cut in interest rates. That lack of responsiveness on the part of banking institutions to consumers is not acceptable. Consequently, in relation to this Bill, I hope the banks will respond in a different fashion here. Essentially, I want to put it on record that my party are not opposing Report Stage of this Bill. We welcome it, it is something we have argued as being necessary for a long time.
Again, I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to see him back here on the last day of the session. If any Minister deserves to be congratulated, it is the Minister for Labour. We have seen him in this House more often than any other Minister. We compliment him on his willingness at all times to bring forward very radical legislation both in this House and in the other House and on the fact that he has introduced major legislation in this House; this Bill is one of those items of legislation which he initiated. As the Minister has said this Bill enshrines three basic rights to the employee, first, the right of every employee to a readily negotiable method of wage payment; second, the right of every employee to a written statement of wages and deductions and, third, the protection of every employee against unlawful deductions from wages. The amendments put down by the Minister relate to the latter area.
This Report Stage is the end of a process of negotiations which the Minister commenced in November 1987. This is evidence of the patience, forebearance and open mindedness of the Minister for Labour. When people advised, either by letter or through direct contact with either the Seanad or the Dáil, on different aspects of this Bill the Minister was prepared to listen and to bring forward amendments particularly in relation to deductions. Because of the advances in new technology as we move towards the 21st century, even the smallest businesses will be able to avail of technology and all sorts of mechanisms by which to pay wages. Regarding the concern expressed earlier in relation to deductions it is extremely important that each employee, when he receives his wage slip at the end of a week, month or whatever, readily understands the different deductions.
The Minister ought to be complimented on the production of this legislation. It is important to emphasise again the need for a change to a non-cash society. The huge number of armed robberies we have had in the past involving large sums of money being transported from A to B and the enormous security risk involved make it necessary in this day and age to encourage people to change from cash payments to non-cash payments. As the Minister has stressed time and again, this legislation does not envisage any degree of compulsion on behalf of employees. In fact, agreements can be made by the employees directly with the employers or by employee organisations directly with employers' organisations in relation to the transfer from cash payment to non-cash payments. There is absolutely no implication of compulsion on behalf of employees to change to non-cash system of payment.
It is no harm to remind the House that this legislation reviews the Payment of Wages Act, 1979. Where agreements, which have been entered into by employees for non-cash payments, expire, employees if they so wish can revert to a cash method of wage payment. This shows the flexibility of this legislation. Having said that, it is important at this stage, that we encourage employees to think about transferring to a non-cash method of payment. I share the concern of Senators — and that of Deputies in the other House — in relation to banks. I know the Minister shares the view that the legislation should not be a recipe for banking institutions to increase charges enormously. If employees transfer to a non-cash method of payment and their wages are transferred directly into bank accounts that should not be an opportunity for the banks, having got all the people in, to say they are increasing their charges in one way or another.
The Minister has rightly pointed out that there are avenues through which wages can be paid other than through the banking system: the building societies are now vying with the banks for business; An Post have an outstanding opportunity under this legislation to get involved in this area; credit unions and all other types of financial institutions have opportunities to get involved and to encourage people to shop with them rather than with others. Competition is the spice of life. I have no doubt that where facilities are provided by institutions other than the banks, the banks will find it extremely difficult to increase charges and to cream off much of the profits. We have to reassure employees, if they opt for payment of wages other than by non-cash payments, that they will not be penalised in terms of increased charges and increased interest charges and expenses in relation to the payment of their wages. We must give them that assurance and at the same time encourage them to participate in this transfer. It was wrong of people to advocate that there should be a compulsion on employees to transfer from a cash to a non-cash method of payment. This cannot be a rapid change. An opportunity must be given to employees to consider their position and to transfer from a cash to a non-cash society in good faith and with confidence.
Would the Senator please relate his remarks to the amendment?
In relation to deductions where employees decide — hopefully the vast majority of employees will decide — to transfer to a non-cash method of payment all they will receive is a list showing their deductions and the money will be transferred directly into the banks. It is extremely important — and the legislation is quite categoric in this — that such employees understand the various deductions shown on their wage slips.
I compliment the Minister on the outstanding work he is doing in the area of labour legislation. The Minister referred to a report in The Cork Examiner which stated he was dusting off legislation which had been in existence for over 250 years. The Minister is to be complimented on bringing all this legislation up-to-date. I support the amendments and I know this legislation will have a quick passage through the House.
I will not go over the history of Second Stage. I realise we are on Report Stage so I will be brief. I am very happy with the transitional arrangements and I am also pleased, having regard to what the Senator has just said, that the Truck Acts are still in place.
I do not know whether it is possible to enshrine in legislation a provision to allow people time off to cash cheques. There is also a difficulty that low paid workers would be forced to open bank accounts, something to which they are not accustomed.
This would not be a very good arrangement and the legislation does not seem to deal with that aspect. However, I welcome the legislation and I also congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing.
I want to make two points on this Bill which has been welcomed by all parties. As a former businessman I am very pleased with the amendment dealing with data in relation to a wage slip because it is a matter which often led to ambiguity. I am glad the Minister has accepted amendments to have absolute clarity in regard to what is on a wage slip.
The Minister's common sense prevailed and common sense is part and parcel of good legislation. The second amendment states that deductions can be spread over a period of time. That has been done in the past by many employers who wanted good relations with their employees.
What effect would this legislation have if, we had another bank strike? Has any thought been given to a situation where we are basically advocating that people accept payment other than cash?
I thank the House for arranging time to conclude this Bill on the last day of the session. I wish to thank Senators for their constructive and careful approach throughout the debate on the Bill. As always, I have not been disappointed in relation to a decision to initiate the Bill in the Upper House. I was asked some time ago by Senators to do this whenever possible and they have always been helpful and constructive in that respect.
The proposals that emerged from the considered debate on Second Stage were always interesting and, in some instances, were of significant benefit to bringing forward amendments in the Dáil. The Bill has been enhanced as a result of the approach adopted by this House and the opportunity given to me to take up the ideas in the amendments put forward. I would like to thank all Senators for their contributions.
Senator Harte asked about arrangements for time off. We felt it was best, after the long discussions we had on this Bill not to put anything into legislation because — and this also covers the question of low pay — as the Bill stands employees who have the benefit of being paid cash at present still maintain that right under the law. Anybody who has an agreement under the 1979 Act still holds those rights. The trade unions, their representative body or a group of workers will not relinquish their right to be paid by cash unless it is negotiated and they reach an agreement with their employer. There are significant financial and security benefits for employers in paying by cheque.
It is important that employers use the legislation to try to amend the present position where a large portion of the workforce have been paid by cash but that would have to be done by negotiation. We are leaving it to them in the Bill to negotiate the time off arrangements. Workers in the Oireachtas would require certain facilities but not the same as people working in more isolated or rural areas or in outlying parts of the city where they could not readily get to banks or other financial institutions. The employer will have to negotiate these arrangements, otherwise he will continue paying by cash.
In regard to low paid workers. I hope employers will not try, even in the case of unorganised workers, to ride roughshod over any of their workforce. If they do of course there is the right of appeal to the tribunal.
There are benefits here for big employers but where the workforce is organised through trade unions they will have to negotiate. Perhaps we will not see dramatic short term movements away from cash by the passage of this legislation but in the course of time it will effectively eliminate cash pay because all new workers, regardless of the existing workforce, will be paid by cheque. Even if the employers do not take up the options, as time passes the new workforce will be paid by cash. I would not like to have to wait for 20 years or so for that to happen. The big employers will move and come to conclusions in this regard.
Too often throughout the years we have read headlines about major bank robberies and attacks on employees. Employees within the banking institutions and industry do their best to protect payrolls. Since I was in the House last there have been examples of fairly ferocious attacks on employees of two licensed premises. In both instances the employees were given no opportunity to say whether or not they had the money. I know that in those instances the employees were lodging takings rather than handling wages, but now that the Houses of the Oireachtas have given employers the tool with which to make a move away from cash payment of wages, employers have an obligation to do their best to use it. Employers and employees now have the ability to negotiate a package for non cash payment of wages. After the traditional August holiday breaks of most workforces those negotiations should go to the top of the agenda for employers. Before the Christmas holiday period a great change should have been made.
The Houses of the Oireachtas have spent much time considering the Bill. As this is Final Stage I should like to put on record my thanks to the Seanad, Dáil and also to my to my officials, who have in the past years worked extremely hard on the Bill. Credit and thanks due to them will be demonstrated in the speed with which employers and trade unions put into force the measures contained in the Bill.
Senator Wright asked me a question about bank strikes. The answer is contained in section 2 (2) which states:
Where wages fall to be paid by an employee by a mode other than cash at a time when, owing to a strike or other industrial action affecting a financial institution, cash is not readily available to the employee, the employer concerned shall, if the employee consents, pay the wages by another mode (other than cash) specified in subsection (1) and, if the employee does not so consent, pay them in cash.
I reiterate that the Bill is not all about banks. There are several modes for payment of wages other than cash. As I said before, they include the post offices, trustee savings banks and credit unions, which can be used very successfully.
The financial institutions — and I put them all under the same umbrella — should now be considering developments in the payment of wages. As I said in the Dáil, the credit unions are giving a very good service. They were not listed specifically in the Bill because they were considered to come under the heading of other modes of banking. Credit unions open into the evening and their hours are flexible. I hope that the banks will now become more flexible in their hours so that employees do not have to take time off work in order to get to them.
I know that banks do provide automatic teller machines but they are not always satisfactory. In the past few weeks I have noted that one such machine in the vicinity of Croke Park, which is near my own patch, keeps running out of money — I am not sure whether it is that GAA supporters are so rich or so poor that they need to use that service to take out an extra few quid. It would seem to be a better idea for the bank to pay its employees a few hours' overtime to open the bank and pay out the money. It is no longer acceptable that people should be able to use the banking service only between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. with an hour lost for a lunch break. If the banks do not change their position in that regard then other financial institutions will have to take up the slack. I hope the Bill will start the move for competition in that way.
I thank Senators for their contributions today. I thank representatives of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and my own party, Fianna Fáil, who have supported the Bill's passage today. The Government are glad that the Bill will be passed, and I hope it will be implemented in full in the way both Houses of the Oireachtas desire.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.40 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.