Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jan 1994

SECTION 1.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) This Act will be enacted only—

(a) in areas where it can be demonstrated definitely that the proposed new requirements will not place a further bureaucratic burden on employers, and

(b) in the context of major simplification of the existing requirements.".

The purpose of this amendment is to limit the scope and application of this legislation. In view of the current situation with regard to unemployment, any new EU directive must be considered in the context of whether it will help or hinder job creation. Among the factors that militate against job creation are excessive red tape, form filling and bureaucracy. We have been made aware of that by those who are in the business of maintaining and creating jobs. Are we, unnecessarily and without proof of its benefit, imposing another form filling requirement on employers? If that is so, we must view this directive with cautious suspicion.

I listened recently to the owner of a small business speaking about the current situation in employment. He said that if his business expanded and he wished to acquire new equipment, he would get a 50 per cent grant from the State; he could lease money at the current attractive rates and the remainder of the cost could be written off for tax. However, if he wished to employ an extra worker or create one new job, he would have to be prepared to pay high PRSI. In addition he would need the time and facilities to deal with the additional form filling, bureaucracy and red tape. That is the current climate in this country in relation to job retention and creation. That is my reason for proposing this amendment.

The Minister must clearly spell out what is proposed in this Bill that is not already law. My understanding is that much of what is proposed in this Bill is already law. I understand that the protection it seeks to offer employers is already available and that a great deal of what is contained in this Bill duplicates the requirements that currently exist. The Minister should spell out the areas where this Bill could usefully be applied and in what way it will benefit a category of workers or prospective workers who are not already covered.

In addition, more time and thought must be given to how this legislation will be applied. The bottom line is whether this legislation will hinder instead of help job creation. Unless the Minister can prove that it helps job creation, I propose to put this amendment to a vote. I am sceptical about many of these directives. They are fine when considered in the abstract but it is a different story when one attempts to apply them.

Mr. R. Bruton

This Bill amends the terms of employment rights under the 1973 Act. Quite frankly, it is hard to see why the Minister considers that Act to be unsuccessful. Under that Act any employee has the right to require his employer, within one month, to provide a written statement of his terms of employment. That would include the date of commencement of employment; details of pay, overtime, bonus and commission and the methods of calculating them, whether pay is weekly, monthly or otherwise; the conditions regarding hours of work and overtime; holiday entitlements; sick pay arrangements; pension schemes; periods of notice; if the contract of employment is for a fixed time, the date when the contract expires. The Act also requires that in the case of new employees the employer must provide information about terms of employment within one month after commencement of employment.

I have not heard a great hue and cry from workers or trades unions that this Act is working unsatisfactorily. The Minister must establish to the satisfaction of the committee that the existing legislation is defective in some respect. We are, whether or not we like it, imposing a new bureaucratic obligation on employers.

This is the second time in a week that the Department of Enterprise and Employment, which has set up a task force to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on small firms, has come to this committee and sought to impose new obligations. Last week it was a levy and this week it is this legislation. While I recognise that the establishment of a clear contract of employment is crucial to industrial relations, and it is important to have that, I think the existing Act is doing that quite satisfactorily.

Some of the amendments I have tabled require that before any of this would be implemented by order of the Minister, a clear statement would issue from the Department of an assessment of any costs that would be imposed on employers as a result of this. It is a principle we should clearly establish in this committee that whenever it is proposed that legislation be changed some assessment should be made of the impact on employers and employment. I have tabled a different version of the Progressive Democrats' amendment. It is better that we require the Minister to make a statement of cost before she would implement any of the regulations. That would be the best way to proceed.

There are other features which give cause for concern as to whether the provisions of this Bill will introduce some inflexibility that would be unwelcome. I note that under this Bill a rights commissioner will have the power to add to or to alter the existing terms of employment of a worker. That power is not in any way delineated in the Bill, nor does it indicate the purpose of any such addition or alteration by the rights commissioner. That is worrying. Equally, it is a worry that if there are changes in the nature of work, the Bill may constrain the employer and add inflexibility. I would like the Minister at this early stage to demonstrate to us why existing legislation is thought to be ineffective and working so poorly that this Bill is necessary.

Mr. Kemmy

Deputy R. Bruton is right in saying that this legislation clarifies, explains and expands on the information on terms of employment in other Acts. I would not agree with Deputy Quill when she says that it is too broad in scope. On the contrary, it is not broad enough in scope as far as I and my party are concerned. She is right about bureaucracy, red tape and duplication and I would be against that. It is a common complaint of employers that there is too much red tape in employing workers.

We must streamline and simplify legislation in that regard to make it possible for employers to take on workers without too much red tape. However, Deputy Quill obviously does not know enough about changes in industrial practices, especially in the building industry in recent times. I am sure the chairman is familiar with expedients used in the past by employers to frustrate labour Acts insofar as short term working, part time jobs or short term contracts were used, sometimes by public bodies, to frustrate employment appeals tribunals and the scope and provisions of those labour laws.

In recent times, especially in the building industry, there has been the use of what are called C45s and C2s to frustrate the labour laws. The C45 certificates are being used by workers in the building industry to avoid income tax and PRSI and to avoid rights under the Employment Acts such as travelling time, meal and tool allowances. These certificates are being used to frustrate labour laws and trade union agreements. C2 certificates are often used as a spurious form of employment by contractors. In the building industry the C2 invariably means that a labour only subcontractor is working but is not really a contractor or an employer under the meaning of the Acts, insofar as they would not have a permanent yard or premises and would not have any machinery, equipment or materials but would merely be employed by the main contractor on a labour only subcontracting basis, and in turn they often employ men or sublet the work again.

The use of C2 certificates in the building and other industries is not referred to in this Act, nor is the growth in recent times of the use of C45 certificates to frustrate labour laws in so far as individual workers are set up as subcontractors and carry out work for a price. That is not really a lawful form of subcontracting. These people are really employees and workers and should not be allowed to be exploited in this manner. They should be included in the scope of this Bill.

Side by side with the growth of C2s and C45s is the growth of the black economy and sharp practices in industry. As I mentioned last week, the building industry is a jungle. I would like to see the scope of this Bill expanded, not to create further bureaucracy but to bring people who are frustrating the labour laws into its scope, namely workers employed on a C45 basis and those who are bogus contractors employed on a C2 basis.

Chairman

May I remind Members that we agreed on a three minute limit for the introductory remarks on section 1?

Mr. Haughey

I agree with Deputy Quill when she raises the issue of placing bureaucratic burdens on employers. The amendment and the views behind it are reasonable enough, although, perhaps, they do not particularly apply to this Bill. There is no doubt that the question of bureaucracy is a major issue with regard to the creation of employment and that the extent of this bureaucracy is inhibiting job creation. There is a plethora of State agencies and laws, including some labour laws, which are inhibiting job creation, and many of these agencies have no brief for job creation. I am sure the Department of Enterprise and Employment has no particular brief for job creation, and many of the local authorities and other bodies have no real brief for job creation. That must be addressed. I know from various statements the Minister of State has made in the past that she agrees with me on this issue and that many of our organisations and institutions must become more job orientated.

I would like to know how many labour laws now exist of which employers have to be aware. I am sure that many of these labour laws are absolutely necessary for the protection of the worker, but perhaps some are questionable. I would ask the Minister how many labour laws there are now that an employer must be aware of when employing somebody. I would also ask what arrangments will be put in place to inform employers of this law and the many other laws. Are we simply passing laws here in the Oireachtas and talking to ourselves? Do employers know about these laws and what effort is the Department making to inform employers of the existing labour laws?

This Bill, in contrast to what I have just said, is simple enough and is necessary. I do not think this Bill will put a huge bureucratic burden on employers and perhaps, therefore, the amendment is not necessary. However, the issue of bureaucracy against business is an important one and I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.

Mr. Rabbitte

I am glad that Deputy Haughey finished with that flourish of support for this Bill and no doubt the Minister will enumerate the harmful legislation in her reply. I have a feeling that we latch on to fashions of the moment to explain the appalling jobs situation. One such attitude is that bureaucracy is the entire cause of the unemployment situation. There is a great deal of bureaucracy that is pro-business also, such as agencies that are funded by the taxpayers. I believe that there is a case for simplifying much of the bureaucracy. However, as Deputy Haughey remarked in his final sentence, this Bill is not going to add to the bureaucracy. This is a simple Bill that merely gives employees, in the most vulnerable categories and occupations, some basic entitlements. It is no more than that.

I do not agree with Deputy Quill's amendment and I believe Deputy Quill does not agree with it either. The reason I suggest this is that I was fortunate to be in the House for Deputy Quill's Second Stage speech. During the course of her speech with Deputy expressed her reservations about more bureaucracy. She then went on to say, and I quote from the Official Report of 9 December 1993, Volume 437, column 204:

However, when I examined this Bill more closely I conceded it did not fall into the category of the provisions I just mentioned. What is proposed in this Bill is a worthy measure offering protection to the employer as well as to the employee. The right to information is one is one of the most basic rights and this Bill, as I have said, gives equal protection to the employer as well as the employee. It is important in any contract of employment, that all the conditions are set out simply and unambiguously at the outset. If that was done in all cases many of the misunderstandings and disputes which arise later, some of which cause enormous problems and may lead to stoppages, could be avoided.

That is an excellent summary of this Bill with which I concur entirely. Deputy Quill is an estimable Member of the House. However, I would not have quoted from the Official Report if Deputy Quill's former Leader, Deputy O'Malley, had still been Leader of her party. Now that Deputy O'Malley has left, and that the harder edge of the Progressive Democrats has left, I am sure Deputy Quill still agrees with those sentiments.

Therefore, we can agree that the Bill is desirable. As Deputy Kemmy said, it does not go far enough and he instanced the case of the building industry. There are many other areas where workers are at their most vulnerable and generally are not trade union organised, such as the hotel and catering industry, the retail sector and so on. For example, in the hotel and catering industry, where there should be flexibility, workers can present themselves for work and be told to go home again as there is no work for them, or they cannot be told in advance for how long they will be required, and so on. This Bill requires to give workers the most basic information which, I agree, offers the prospect of avoiding unnecessary disputes. This is another reason why it is a positive measure and regrettably I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

This Bill will cover the people mentioned by Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Rabbitte, because if it does not it will count for nothing. At present, for example, and Deputy Kemmy has mentioned this both today and previously, in the construction industry, and in other industries such as forestry and meat processing, the procedure whereby people are employed under the C45 and C50 system is rampant. Such people, in effect, are not covered by any labour legislation.

If people feel that this Bill is going to create further difficulties for employers, I would ask such Deputies to advise the committee on the situation for the future if every employer moves into the system I have outlined, in forestry, construction, meat processing and the services and catering industries. If they all adopt the same kind of employee in their companies, what will the situation be in a few years time when people require pensions or other social welfare entitlements to which they have contributed nothing? What will happen when they get sick or old and will require help from the State?

There is much emphasis at present on the creation of employment. If we are going to create jobs let us create jobs which will benefit the employee, not simply the employer. Every scheme introduced by any Government, especially over the last number of years, has been exploited by certain employers, none more so than in relation to the C45 and C50 system and the FÁS schemes. Examples have been cited to me on a daily basis where people in low income industries being paid wages of approximately £100 per week are working alongside FÁS workers undertaking the same work for £46 per week.

If this Bill tries to eliminate some of those practices it will be a help, but if it does not I suggest to the Minister that she should speedily propose an amendment to ensure that those malpractices are eliminated in all industries where it has been in existence for the last ten years or more. It started in transport where the big companies allowed truck drivers to buy their own truck and become a self-employer. It has now spread to the meat industry, the construction industry and in forestry. If the legislation does not cover such people it is a waste of time enacting a Bill of this kind. Such people are vulnerable and are being exploited.

Mr. Costello

I am surprised at the two amendments that are being discussed. I see no justification for them. In the debate on Second Stage the criticism from the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats was that this legislation was not introduced earlier to fulfil our requirements under the EU in implementing the directive to protect workers. At present they appear to be finding various red herrings to oppose the legislation, first, from Deputy Quill's amendment on the basis that it would be bureaucratic and, secondly, from Deputy Richard Bruton's amendment that in the first instance employers and employees should be consulted.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Deputy is distorting my views. If he examines my amendment, it was proposed in that a category of work would be excluded from the coverage of the Bill, that there would be consultation with representatives of employers and employees.

Mr. Costello

Regarding the costs which Deputy Bruton mentioned, it is not envisaged that there would be any significant costs, certainly not for employers, unless there is recourse to the appeals mechanism. What costs can possibly be incurred by giving employees a description of their terms and conditions of employment? That is a basic entitlement and only a minimal cost is involved, of paper, of putting it down in writing, placing it in an envelope and giving it to the employee.

Regarding bureaucracy, where does this arise in an employer providing an employee with a statement of terms of employment? It is a basic right which any employee should have from an employer and there should be no question raised about its introduction.

It is especially important in the present circumstances, as has been mentioned by a number of Deputies, because of the greater flexibility in the nature of work that is taking place and the various new forms of work that are being created, such as part time work, temporary work of various forms, and the expansion of the service industry, where conditions of employment are seldom specified and often maximum rights are not given to the employee. Subcontracting work related to the C45 and C2 forms is a scandal. The employee is poorly treated and a statement of the terms of employment may never have been handed to him or her. A wide variety of areas could be highlighted — the entertainment industry, hotel and catering, fast food services and agency work.

Ireland has embraced the Social Charter of the European Union Treaty which states that every employee has the right to information, consultation and participation. This Bill implements those provisions. The Social Charter is by no means a rigid statement in favour of employees; it is vague in many areas. This is a basic entitlement and there is no reason why it should be objected to as providing bureaucratic obstacles and impediments to providing employment in industry or elsewhere.

Mr. Sheehan

What extra assurances for the employee are contained in this legislation which do not exist in Ireland? Could she say are the existing regulations governing employment in this country null and void as far as the EU is concerned? Are they defective in any way? Are we about to pass legislation which will create more red tape for employers to endure if they wish to expand their labour force? I dislike the move afoot in this Bill to create extra hardship for employers to the detriment of the creation of much needed jobs, since 300,000 are unemployed at present. Surely avenues are available to employees; they can resort to employment and unfair dismissals tribunals, etc. How many more EU directives must we enact which will put further impositions on people trying to create jobs? Semi-State bodies are now employing people on a temporary basis and those people are only too happy to get those jobs. Banks are also taking on temporary workers who will have no rights to pensions except through contributions to the State.

If we enact legislation on the basis of EU directives there will be a detrimental effect on the moves to create jobs. Can the Minister say whether the employee is not already adequately covered by the safeguards in the provisions and regulations governing employment? If not, will the Bill do that, or will it simply give a carte blanche to employers to write regulations appertaining to employment into their contracts? That may put more people into categories where they will not qualify for pensions. Perhaps we are too diligent as Europeans, which results in us losing jobs.

Mr. Broughan

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this timely and simple legislation which is necessary, as my colleagues have said. One wonders where some of the conservative Deputies from Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have been living for the last ten years. Have they not noticed that in the 70 to 75 per cent of the private sector which is not unionised, a small but significant number of employers have driven a horse and carriage through much of the previous legislation? My colleagues have referred to specific trades.

We have all met young men and women seeking assistance for a local government mortgage application. They discover they are living a week to week or month to month existence, going from one short term contract to another, not knowing the terms of these contracts. Unfortunately, they must be told they can never obtain mortgages and must remain on the housing list. There is a huge advantage on the side of unscrupulous employers. It is important that this legislation be introduced to give a basic civil right to an employee.

Mr. Flood

Like other speakers I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this important and brief legislation. Comments have been made about the need to create employment and whether this Bill will contribute to that. One major factor leading to the creation of employment is the relationship between employers and employees. Any Bill which spells out that relationship and makes it clear to both sides at all times is capable of making a considerable contribution to job creation, not just in the short term but in the long term also. It is also a basic right of employees to have detailed information about their terms of employment. Perhaps the Minister could eventually do more on this matter. For example, employees should be entitled to know if the substantial deductions from their wages are being paid properly and on time to the State.

Considerable difficulties have occurred in this area in the past. Employees have no right to withhold their deductions; they are made by the employer at source. It can be disappointing when they realise that the deductions made to their wages have not been given to the State. Therefore, an employee ought to be entitled to see a quarterly declaration from the State indicating that the various deductions in PRSI and tax have been paid and duly receipted. This impinges on other employers in the same industry.

The Minister might also examine the possibility that an employee involved in dangerous work would be adequately covered by insurance if an accident occurs. She could do this through legislation, perhaps in this Bill. One hopes a range of issues will arise from this progressive legislation and will be followed up by the Minister. A constructive employer-employee relationship should emerge from this.

There is growing concern in regard to employment agencies and the relationship between a person obtaining employment through such an agency, especially on a temporary or contract basis, and their ultimate employer. A number of cases come to mind where people are suffering badly because of the weakness in the relationship between an employment agency, a full time or temporary employee and their place of work. I know the Minister is aware of this matter and will obviously do something about it in legislation.

I congratulate the Minister and hope she will see this as part of a process of developing constructive information that will be of benefit both to employee and employer, not in a bureaucratic way, but which will lead to a constructive relationship between them at all levels, be they short or long term contracts of positions of employment.

Mr. Crawford

Other Deputies have said that this is simple legislation, which will not add much bureaucracy. What worries employers, and the Minister is well aware of it, is not that it adds extra bureaucracy but that it is more bureaucracy on top of what is already an over-bureaucratic system. If, through amending this legislation or otherwise, the Minister could simplify the means through which employers could bring in permanent employees, we would be moving somewhere towards alleviating the unemployment situation, where almost 300,000 people are on the unemployment register. Some 10,000 people were added to the register last month. If the situation is as good as some of the Deputies here have said, that should not be happening.

We obviously thought that people who are employed by contractors should have some degree of assurance as to the way they are employed. Many firms have been forced to take on contract labour because of the increasing bureaucracy that has recently been built up in this sector. Employers in the health boards, the banks and the media industry are taking on contract workers rather than full-time employees to avoid the long term commitments they would otherwise have to give.

A Deputy said earlier that we are inclined to blame the EU for everything. We are being told it is because of the EU that this legislation is being introduced and that it will help the employee. Some of us recently went to Brussels to be advised on how the European system worked. It is no harm to refer — some of the Deputies here were with me at the time — to the manner in which the EU administration were treating their employees. We were on the twelfth floor of the new EU building, which was an extension of the existing building. Their construction employees were working on scaffolding that was totally unsafe. They were working on girders, which we would not use here. We are being forced to enact EU legislation to the last detail — I see other Deputies nodding their heads in agreement with what I am saying — while I am not against that we need to be careful that we do not go overboard in that we force ourselves into a situation where outsiders, rather than our own employees, will be coming in here to take up the work.

I appreciate the Minister's effort in bringing this Bill forward. Deputy Haughey asked an important question. How many rules have employers to adhere to before they can employ somebody? We want to encourage employers to employ people, not discourage them.

Mr. R. Burke

To listen to the previous speaker and his Fine Gael colleagues and to look at this Progressive Democrat amendment, one would think that this basic information to be provided as a result of this legislation will add another 100,000 people to the dole queues. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is basic information in the relationship between an employer and an employee, which would have been provided irrespective of this Bill.

What are we forced to implement by the EU? This Bill says that if a man or woman is employed, he or she is entitled to information from their employer as to the terms of the contract of the employment. There is nothing fundamental or revoluntionary about that. It is not a further bureaucratic burden. Bureaucratic burdens are taxes and levies and we have too many of those already. This is——

Miss Quill

Michael D. will ruin the budget.

Mr. R. Burke

——basic information which is to be, and should be, provided for any individual. There are currently around 300,000 people unemployed and there is much talk about job creation and about various agencies. What we need is a profit motive and a stable relationship between employer and employee in relation to information and respect for each other's positions. One does not create jobs by merely having state agencies, but by having a manufacturer provide a product or service which the marketplace wants to buy. This legislation will not interfere in any way with that job creation aspect. It is basic in many ways. It has already been provided by most decent employers and will not create any further burdens. The black picture painted by Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats is going over the top. It is right wing politics at its worst. This is basic information that every person working within our society is entitled to and any responsible employer would want to provide.

Mr. Kirk

Most of the general observations about the Bill have already been made, but when the Minister is responding to Second Stage, she may deal with the sections in more detail.

Will the legislation apply, for instance, to casual employment or to people employed in social employment schemes, teamwork, community youth and training? Will there be a minimum threshold above which it will apply in terms of numbers employed and will it not apply below that threshold? Could the Minister also elaborate on the provision for hearing before a rights commissioner and what the modus operandi will be in the area? Will it be a question of establishing new structures or availing of existing ones to process complaints? Will there be provisions for an appeals procedure to either the employee or the employer on decisions arising from a commissioner’s hearing?

Most of the general observations on the Bill have been made and I will try to avoid duplication in that regard. If the Minister has a chance when replying she might try to deal with them.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Mrs. O'Rourke)

I thank the 14 Members who contributed at the start of Committee Stage. Clearly, to go through each of the contributions would be difficult and time consuming. In the answers I will give I will try to encompass some of the main points raised.

I am disappointed at the change of tenor from Second Stage to this amendment, although I accept anybody's right to put down an amendment. In context, this directive was passed by European Ministers on 14 October 1991. The Government at that time adhered to the Social Charter, as it does now. Deputy Quill and her party were members of the Government which endorsed that directive of October 1991 and approved its passing. It is therefore incumbent on each member state of the EU to proceed with the implementation of such a directive and we have done this. If we had not brought in the legislation we would have been subject not just to chiding by the European Union but also to enforcement procedures. Deputy Flaherty alluded to this fear when she spoke about the measures on Second Stage.

We are enthusiastic Europeans. We cannot choose to be so in an ad hoc fashion, in that we take what is going when it is good but decide that we do not like this measure or that measure. We are either Europeans or we are not. The committee seeks to bring its points of view to bear when such measures are discussed and I recognise that Deputy Quill and other members of Opposition parties who spoke have unemployment at the core of their argument. We are talking about a sheet of paper on which will be itemised, as in section 3 of the Bill, details of the employer’s name and address — how exotic a stipulation — the place of work, the title of the job and the date of commencement. It is a sheet of paper containing basic information. We are not talking about the 300,000 people who are unemployed; although it is sad, that is for another occasion. We are talking about a sheet of paper with plain information.

We got ourselves into a lather last year about the need for and right to information in another sphere, and quite rightly so. I am strongly committed to the consumer ethic, which is that information is knowledge. Armed with information one is equal to anybody else. There is an inherent imbalance between employers and employees, which is sometimes good and at other times not good. Clearly, if an employee has information, he or she can go about their business in a much more confident and motivated way. In a social pact, which the social partners are endeavouring to conclude with Government at the moment, it is clear that one has a better workforce if it is motivated, interested in the firm and has knowledge of its operations, and if employers have straightforward knowledge of the names and addresses of their emplyees, where they will work and the nature of the job they will do.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister should not be so naive.

(Interruptions.)

Chairman

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Deputy Sheehan wandered on at great length and I did not interrupt him. I did not find it riveting but I did not interrupt him either. I am talking about a sheet of paper.

In answer to some other queries that were raised, there is an information unit in the section of the Department of Enterprise and Employment which deals with labour affairs. It is staffed by most amenable and agreeable people, who are there at the behest of the public who want any question answered. They have a remit to speak plainly and publicly to anybody who wishes to speak to them.

Deputy Haughey asked about pieces of labour legislation. I did not come armed with that information but within the Department, at my behest, we are bringing out a simplified booklet about all the labour legislation. I am also in the business of consolidation. Someone else asked about that. I am not slapping down anybody, Deputy Rabbitte. I have the Deputy under full observation; once a teacher always a teacher, I am afraid. One sees everyone around, backbenchers or not.

Mr. Rabbitte

I was just supporting Deputy Haughey.

Mrs. O'Rourke

There is a great need to consolidate. I am about the business of getting seven pieces of legislation together in a simplified form, in a consolidated Bill. That will lessen the level of bureaucracy. Those who use the Bill will have a cohesive piece of legislation with regard to employment. Clearly, that is common sense and I am glad to be in a position to tell the committee that that is being done.

This covers employment agency workers, for those who asked about that. Regarding the point raised by Deputy Kemmy and his colleagues, Deputy Fitzgerald and Deputy Flood, it does not cover the casual type of labour to which the Deputy referred. That is a huge issue. The more casual the type of labour, the less rights workers have. Sometimes, belatedly, pieces of legislation seek to pick up on this, such as the part-time workers' Act and others. There is a clear need to address in a global fashion the casualisation of work, some of which is needed. Some people want flexibility and part-time work while others want work sharing. Some of it is necessary, but that issue will have to be examined.

The Opposition Deputies do not just have the ear of employers and nobody else. I have talked to many employers with regard to legislation I am bringing in and this legislation in its composition was brought about in consultation with IBEC and ICTU. I had the last of several detailed meetings yesterday morning, which followed several others held by Department officials. This is a measure of consensus and it is not just a one way street in getting the ears of employers. We all meet employers. This legislation does not seek to create a divide between them and us. Why are we trying to put employers in one place and employees in another, as if somehow there was a vendetta? It is far from it. We are on a consensus path, bringing employers with us. As I discovered, employers and employees who know their duties and rights are the best motivated. We need less bureaucracy.

Chairman

Could I ask the Minister to conclude now, please?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Two more sentences.

Chairman

Just one moment, Minister. We ought to make one point clear. I am chairing this meeting. There was an agreement that the Minister would be allowed five minutes to conclude. You have exceeded your time, Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

One minute. I wish everybody else had kept to their time. I see the lessening of bureaucracy in the following ways: plain language and no gobbledegook, simplified guides; consolidation of legislation; a social pact between employers and employees; and a concentration on job retention and consolidation rather than anything else.

Chairman

Deputy Quill, is the amendment being pressed?

Miss Quill

Yes. May I respond briefly?

Chairman

The Deputy is in order.

Miss Quill

First, I wish to say that I am not against this legislation. I support it and I do so for all the reasons that I put on record during my Second Stage contribution. The reasons were elegantly and eloquently repeated here today by Deputy Rabbitte. I thank him sincerely for that; with friends like that, who needs enemies. Deputy Rabbitte was right when he reminded us that I support the legislation. However, I am against the blanket application of this legislation. There is no reason why it should be extended to areas covered by existing legislation. Deputy R. Burke said the majority of employers treat their employees decently and comply with provisions contained in this legislation. There is no reason why we should visit a useless and meaningless requirement on such employers. I do not care whether the form is one or 21 pages, employers who treat their employees decently should not be asked to comply with this regulation.

When I ask for the selective application of this I have in mind the categories of workers mentioned by Deputy Kemmy. He was right to spell it out because that is what we must do. We must spell out areas where there is a need for the protection of workers. We must strengthen this type of legislation so it applies to casual workers. I am conscious that young workers are being exploited in areas of casual labour and I am concerned about them. I am not concerned about workers who have adequate protection and there is no reason or justification for extending this legislation to them.

Regarding the Minister's point about being enthusiastic Europeans, I am an enthusiastic European. I would like to believe I am a sophisticated European and that I can take regulations and apply those of benefit to this country, the workers and the people and sidestep or ignore those which are of no benefit. I ask for the selective application of this legislation.

Mr. R. Bruton

My party would support this amendment if it was changed to read "an unreasonable bureaucratic burden", rather than "a further bureaucratic burden".

Chairman

I must put the amendment.

Mr. R. Bruton

I would like to consult the Standing Orders. I understand we are entitled to speak a second time on an amendment of this nature. If the proposer of an amendment is willing to change its wording, the House is entitled to agree to such a proposal from other speakers.

Chairman

I have given everybody that opportunity.

Mr. R. Bruton

We are either trying to deal with the amendment or not. I suggest the amendment should not read "a further bureaucratic burden" because anything which requires an employer to write something could be construed as one. To state "a further bureaucratic burden" would knock out the legislation; therefore, it would be fair to put in "an unreasonable bureaucratic burden". It is a mistake for some speakers to try to put people in boxes and to say it is right wing ideology, etc. We are all concerned that we do not deal with this legislation in such a way that, as Deputy Crawford said, people go for contract work instead of proper terms of employment.

I ask the Progressive Democrats to change the amendment. The amendment I propose later would require the Minister when moving this by way of order to state her assessment of the potential impact of this on costs. If both amendments were taken it would ensure this Bill could go through and we could be satisfied there are no hidden problems of a bureaucratic nature. A combination of those would be reasonable and I do not believe it would be unacceptable to any Member of the committee.

Mr. Rabbitte

I do not believe Deputy R. Bruton's suggestion changes the thrust of this, although it would be difficult to interpret. The Minister has a point when she talks about one sheet of paper. Although the information which must be given to an employee is basic — for example, the name of the employer, the location of the work, etc. — it can be important. I am aware of disputes and I have encountered situations where workers do not know who employs them. This is a phenomenon in the present structure of companies, etc. I am aware of disputes in the security industry where somebody has worked as a security guard in a particular location for many years, but can be sent to any location under the sun without notice.

Deputy Quill said that no additional impositions should be placed on decent employers. No additional impositions are being placed on them. We are legislating for categories which include vulnerable workers, workers who are not organised in the main trade union and to whom this basic information about the identity of the employer, the place of work, hours of work, etc. is valuable. This Bill puts in place an appeals mechanism where that right of the employee can be vindicated in an institution established in 1969, the rights commissioners. It is an informal, mediatory and conciliatory institution which works well in the opinion of both sides of industry. Although Deputy Quill voiced her support for the Bill, and the generous instincts she demonstrated on Second Stage are still present, I appeal to her to withdraw the amendment so we may proceed to the next one.

Chairman

Will Deputy Quill accept Deputy Bruton's amendment to her amendment?

Miss Quill

Yes. I am taking on board the change advised by Deputy Bruton and I will then press the amendment to a vote.

Chairman

Is Deputy Bruton's amendment to Deputy Quill's amendment agreed to ?

Deputies

No.

Miss Quill

Vótáil.

Chairman

We must wait eight minutes because we do not have full membership.

Mr. Kemmy

Is it necessary to have these votes? As Deputy O'Malley pointed out this morning, I should be at another meeting. Given that a vote takes approximately 15 minutes, this will go on for months rather than for one day.

Chairman

I regret I must abide by Standing Orders. I have no choice in that regard.

Question put: "That the amendment to the amendment be made."

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 16.

Tá
Bruton, Richard. Crawford, Seymour. Creed, Michael. Fox, Johnny.	O'Malley, Des. Quill, Máirin. Sheehan, P. J.

Níl
Broughan, Tommy.	Killeen, Tony.
Burke, Raphael.	Kirk, Séamus.
Costello, Joe.	Lawlor, Liam.
Coughlan, Mary.	McDaid, Jim.
Fitzgerald, Brian.	O'Keeffe, Batt.
Haughey, Seán.	O'Keeffe, Ned.
Hughes, Séamus.	O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Kemmy, Jim.	O'Rourke, Mary.

Question declared lost.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.