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

SECTION 3.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, subsection 1 (b), line 11, after "the" where it firstly occurs to insert "business".

This is a simple, basic, practical change which I seek to stitch into the legislation. It is not really a change but perhaps a clearer definition of what is intended in this Bill. It is fundamentally important that every employee would know precisely where contact can be made with an employer and that this would be communicated clearly and simply, as I said on Second Stage, at the commencement of any contract. I think it is important to put in the business address, which would be sufficient.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I can see what Deputy Quill had in mind when she put forward this amendment. However, there are good reasons why we in the Department referred to "the address of the employer". The Bill applies to all employees who are employed under a contract of employment, satisfy the four weeks' service requirement and work at least eight hours a week. An employee who satisfies the eligibility requirements may be employed by an individual who runs a business or who is involved in some way with a particular commercial business which has a particular business address. That would cover what Deputy Quill is talking about.

However, the employee may be employed by that individual in the home or in some other capacity which is not related to the other business. My concern about requiring that the businness address be given arises from the fact that the employer may seek to state the "business" address for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the provision but that this address is not in any way relevant or useful to the employee — for example, an employee employed as a home help. Consequently, given the position I have outlined above and my reasons for the approach taken, it might restrict the rights of employees to limit it to "business address".

Chairman

Does the Deputy intend pressing her amendment?

Miss Quill

I would like the Minister to reconsider. I do not intend to press it to a vote. Perhaps, she could insert the words "where appropriate" which would cover the areas she mentioned. However, in normal circumstances the business address would be sufficient to meet the spirit of this legislation. I do not think there is any particular need for this where an employer has a business address because a contract of employment is a business matter. I take the point about areas where there is no business address. However, I presume that the home then becomes the business for the nature of the contract and I think it would be covered in that manner.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I completely accept the Deputy's point. My difficulty is that there would, for example, be employees employed in a home which, strictly speaking, is not a business and so on and I fear it could lead to abuse of the provision, which is why I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Mr. Rabbitte

Without being smart about it, I honestly think Deputy Quill is defeating her own argument when she makes distinctions between the majority of employers who comply with the requirements and a minority of employers who abuse workers and the rights of workers. This is a classic example of abuse and the insertion of "where appropriate", or the insertion of "business address", rather than the address of the employer removes the precision that is required.

A good employer does not seek to use PO Box numbers, locate himself in some solictor's office or have a plate on a wall where, in my experience, one will not find the employer but instead meet some person who fronts for him and cannot answer questions but says they will pass them on to the employer. It fails to meet the purpose of this legislation and I think the phrase "address of the employer" is quite right. The business address of the employer could be in the Isle of Man or the Cayman Islands and surely we do not propose that a worker will be expected to confront that kind of situation which is not a remote possibility. The section is better as it is currently framed.

Mr. Kemmy

I have a great personal regard for Deputy Quill and I do not like falling out with her at this meeting.

Mr. Sheehan

The Deputy is watching his transfers.

Miss Quill

This is a business meeting.

Mr. Kemmy

Deputy Sheehan should not be so base in his observations. My mind is elevated to higher matters than that to which he referred.

Miss Quill

Our personal relations, like my personal address, are my own business.

Mr. Kemmy

Some of her amendments are frivolous and possibly vexatious because the Minister pointed out to Deputy Quill earlier that these provisions have been embraced by all but one of the 12 member countries of the European Union. Those countries have longer experience and more workers than we have. We have a population of 3.5 million people in a community of 340 million people and that is 1 per cent of the population. A flea in the tail cannot wag the dog and that is what the Deputy is trying to do here by turning the whole issue on its head.

I have taken many cases to the Employment Appeals Tribunal since its inception and, as Deputy Rabbitte said, one would be surprised at the strategies and ploys that some employers, albeit a minority, adopt to evade the responsibilities imposed on them by labour legislation. Some employers use a number of addresses and box numbers behind which they are taking refuge to evade their responsibilities in these areas. As the Minister said, this is not designed to punish a good employer. On the contrary, good employers will benefit from this. It is to catch the people who have been evading their responsibilites.

There have been many occasions on which I have won awards for workers at tribunal hearings and been unable to collect because employers have a number of addresses and different names for their companies. They have hidden behind these and workers have been frustrated in their efforts to collect the awards made to them by the tribunal. The Deputy is wrong in putting down some of these amendments as they have no basis in reality. This provision is not designed to punish or penalise the good employer but to catch the delinquent employer, as is the purpose of the legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, subsection (1) (c), line 16, after "statement" to insert ", where appropriate,".

I will withdraw this amendment. On further reflection I think what I am trying to achieve has already been incorporated in the Bill. I have no doubt about that, although I still have some doubt about the previous amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss Quill

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 18 and 19, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:

"(d) the nature of the work or where appropriate the title of the job for which the employee is employed,".

It has been said that I have been frivolous or vexatious. It is not my intention to be either. I am concerned that this legislation would be effective and efficient and operate to the benefit of both employers and employees because both are important to us. I am concerned about the changing nature of work and the flexibility one finds now.

We need to frame legislation which will recognise how fluid work patterns are and the changing nature of work. People may now start in a job with one company or firm and within a short period of time find themselves doing different work. We are entering that kind of area now and I worry that we are putting in place regulations which are unrealistic and unworkable. That is why I put down this amendment and I am waiting to see what other Members say and how the Minister responds.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not sure how the amendment changes the provision except that it seems to limit the need to specify the title of the job. What is meant by "the nature of the work", particularly in terms of the obligation under section 5 that when the employer changes the nature of the work he has to issue a new statement of employment terms? How specific will this definition of "the nature of the work" be? Will it hamper what could be reasonable changes in what an employee might be doing as a business develops? I would like the Minister to elaborate a little on the purpose of this subsection. I do not know what great value this description would be to an employee. I suppose if one is doing one job one cannot be changed to something completely different. This subsection, however, only provides that the employer should state what they are doing; it does not protect the employee from changes in work practice. I wonder what the purpose of the subsection is and if it represents a net gain for anyone.

Mr. Costello

I do not think the amendment adds to the written statement. The only thing that is new is the phrase "where appropriate". If one is going to give a written statement of the terms of employment it would be necessary to include the title. Why is there an option between the title of the job or the nature of the work? The title of a job can be very brief as somebody may be a teacher, a solicitor, a carpenter or a Dáil Deputy. I would have thought it appropriate to include a description of the type of work as well as the title.

One could use an extended title which would indicate the nature of work. It would also be appropriate that both be given to the employee rather than allowing the employers the option to give either. The Minister might consider allowing a more comprehensive or thorough description rather than leaving the option of giving a very brief title which might not reveal the nature of the work.

Chairman

Before I call Deputy Rabbitte and the Minister, we should try to reach an agreement on time. We are only on section 3 and there are nine more amendments. It is unlikely that we will get through the Bill in one sitting so I suggest that we adjourn at 1 p.m., if that is acceptable.

Mr. R. Bruton

We might conclude the Bill by 1.30 p.m.

Chairman

I am trying to get a consensus here.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am entirely in your hands. I will do whatever Members want.

Chairman

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not want to rush the legislation through. I want to afford everybody a full opportunity to make their case, put forward their amendments and make a contribution. We would be doing the Bill a disservice if we were to try to rush it through by 1.30 p.m. It is far too short a time. Do we agree to continue until 1.30 p.m. and then review the situation? Agreed. I do not want to rush the Bill through.

Mr. Rabbitte

I have some difficulty in understanding the purpose of the amendment. I cannot see that the amendment makes any difference except to put the phrase "the nature of work" before the job title. I cannot see any other difference. Inserting the phrase "where appropriate" is undesirable because it removes the clarity which is the very essence of the legislation. In this situation "where appropriate", when in doubt, will be where appropriate in the interpretation of the employer and it will be necessary to go to some appeals machinery to challenge it. It is not a good idea. The objective test ought to apply.

Deputy Quill has a point about the title of the job. I can see why it is either the job title or a job description, in the sense that it is not always possible to describe a job as teacher, carpenter or Dáil Deputy. It can be more difficult due to the changing nature of work. It is important that there is some attempt made to describe the nature of the work because where no attempt is made to describe that and where the employer is so minded the employee can be abused. I have seen several disputes where an employee is forced to carry out what he or she would consider to be menial tasks that do not conform to the normal job specification they have been carrying out for years. It is a favourite ploy to make somebody leave a job without forcing the employer to formally dismiss them and take his or her chances before the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Act to shift the nature of work that they have to do and instruct them to do a different kind of work to which they are not suited, perhaps something they did when they began that employment ten years earlier. It is necessary to give some descriptive statement of the nature of work, which can always be changed by agreement. This does not cut off the normal process that would apply in an employment situation. If we are to meet the 1.30 p.m. deadline, unless someone else can point to a strong reason for it I cannot readily see it.

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Miss Quill

I have listened very carefully to what has been said. There are certain areas where the insertion of this kind of provision would represent an improvement for workers, particularly in the area of casual and low paid work and where people can be, as Deputy Rabbitte pointed out, forced out by being given menial tasks and by the creation of conditions which give the employee no option but to leave. If it is used in that way any measure in law which could be enacted to prevent that would be a good measure. The opposite sometimes happens as well. We are living in an area where work is much more mobile and it often happens that young people who go into software or electronics employment or any of these new industries start by doing one kind of work and very often move, sometimes upwards. That can happen very quickly. There is great mobility between the tasks that young people are asked to carry out in those kinds of industries. I do not see any justification for creating a situation where an employee will at the commencement of a different type of job or a different task have to fill out another form because extra information is needed. If it were to happen that way, it might be a disincentive to employers to help employees up along the line. I caution against excessive regulation.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The only difference I can see is that the Deputy has put "the nature of the work" first and "the title of the job" second while we have "the title of the job" first.

Miss Quill

"Where appropriate".

Mrs. O'Rourke

The inclusion of the words "where appropriate" would always be "where appropriate" for the employer.

Miss Quill

Would the Minister consider putting it into law?

Mrs. O'Rourke

No, I would not. It would be anti-employee.

Mr. R. Bruton

I asked the Minister to clarify what "the nature of the work" would require the employer to spell out.

Mrs. O'Rourke

It is either the title of the job or the nature of the work, so an office worker's job description could say "clerical duties" or something of that nature.

Mr. Kemmy

On a point of clarification, I wish to say to Deputy Quill that she would not like to see a teacher being asked to clean a toilet. That is all it means. It would be wrong to have that done. That is what Deputy Rabbitte is saying. This could be abused.

Miss Quill

But there are other situations.

Chairman

Deputy Quill has indicated that she wishes to withdraw the amendment. Deputy Costello, do you wish to make some brief remark?

Mr. Costello

In regard to the description of the nature of the work, rather than making it an either or situation could both be included?

Mrs. O'Rourke

We thought of that in drafting the Bill and looking at the directive. To take up Deputy Quill's point, we did not want to discourage mobility or change of job matters such as that. The words which we finally settled upon seemed to us to be the best way of giving a global account without having to go into precise details which sometimes would not be beneficial either to employer or employee. It is the middle way, bearing in mind that the legislation provides that if a job changes, the employee must be provided with the change of description.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete paragraph (1) and substitute the following:

"(i) any terms or conditions relating to hours of work (including overtime, daily starting and finishing time) and where the starting and finishing time may vary during the course of employment, the statement will confirm that the employee will be given notice of his/her daily starting and finishing time at the end of the previous working week,".

I seek here to replace the relevant section there at lines 31 and 32 by an alternative wording. I will briefly tell members why it is necessary. The only effective change is the requirement that where the starting and finishing time may vary because of the nature of the work and so on, a statement will confirm to the employee at the end of the previous working week that the employee will be given notice of his or her daily starting and finishing times.

That is important because in several occupations it is one of the most serious complaints that workers have. I have seen it in the hotel and catering industry and in the case of temporary nurses, nurses who are not informed until they present on the ward or in a nursing home how many hours they might be required to work that day. Indeed, they might be sent home because there is no work or because they work only four hours. In the hotel and catering industry it is notorious because the peaks and valleys of business obviously have to be catered for, but the worker ought to be given some notice. Every hotel manager knows if the Cáirde Fáil dinner is on the following Monday night that it will be a massive affair requiring additional staff and only the best quality service.

The employees on call should be told the number of hours they will be expected to work, the starting and finishing times, rather than being told on the night that circumstances have changed and that some staff must be sent home while others are only needed for four hours. In keeping with the spirit of the legislation in terms of clarity and certainty, it is necessary to give employees reasonable notice about the situation.

The same problem exists in the retail trade. It is subject to peaks and valleys — for example pre-Christmas trading and January sales — and it is unfair for people to present themselves for work and be told they are either not required or they are required to work a 12-hour shift. This situation is especially painful in the nursing area. One category of workers who do not exaggerate the pressures under which they work and the contribution they make are general staff nurses. It is difficult for a nurse to report for duty and be told that she must do an inordinately long shift becaue of a shortage of staff or some unforeseen situation.

A person who is a temporary worker, not by choice but because of the situation in the labour market, should enjoy the same entitlements as workers who are fortunate to be in full-time employment. A person cannot arrange a personal life or attend to family needs because he does not know until he presents himself for work whether he will be able to take the children home from school or prepare meals for them, etc. It is an important area and it imposes little difficulty on the employer who can arrange this by trade union agreement. However, it should be enshrined in the law if there are no agreements.

Mr. R. Bruton

I sympathise with what Deputy Rabbitte has said. Any employee should be given reasonable notice about their work in the coming week and should know where he or she stands. However, I doubt if this can be done by the type of statutory provision the Deputy is putting forward. His amendment is not a reasonable one. As it stands, if an employer fails to make an accurate statement of the starting and finishing times they could be brought before a rights commissioner. This is an excessive way to deal with the problem the Deputy is addressing.

Given the change in working patterns and the move in some cases to annual working time contracts, this could be an awkward provision. Many agreements could be made where employees would be willing to accept unnotified changes in their working patterns at short notice and this would make the amendment unlawful or in breach of this Bill. This could create inflexibility even if an agreement could be reached on negotiation. While I have sympathy with Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion, I am not sure this legislation as it stands would be a great vehicle for getting a reasonable approach to this problem.

Mr. Sheehan

I have sympathy with Deputy Rabbitte's suggestion which may be correct in theory but is unworkable in practice. The hours of employment in the fish processing industry depend on the availability of fish supplies. It would be impossible for fish processors or those operating in the fishing industry to give notice of the correct times when employment could be offered to their employees the following week because it depends on the weather and the availability of fish supplies. It would be an unworkable amendment as far as the fishing industry is concerned.

In seaside resorts in the summer time a strain could be placed on a hotel to provide extra staff if unforeseen circumstances occur. For example, if visitors arrive at a certain hour and demand high tea which has not been booked, the management of that hotel would have to make urgent arrangements to enlist extra staff to cater for that situation. Perhaps the amendment would work in industries in Dublin city, but it would not work in my constituency of Cork South-West.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

I understand what Deputy Rabbitte is attempting to do with his amendment. However, amending the Act with this amendment could give an employer an advantage. For example, an employer employs a person and advises him or her that their normal starting hour is 9 a.m., that they continue until 5 p.m. and the overtime worked before the normal starting time will be paid at a particular rate, either time and a half or double time. Over the period of time the employer realises that this amendment would give him the right to change the worker's starting time to 8 a.m. and this would eliminate any overtime which this person received previously if he started at 9 a.m. Local authorities or anyone carrying out emergency services, etc., would want to vary the starting hours because it would save them money. This amendment would give them the right to change the starting time from a certain hour to an earlier hour and this would save money. Such changes could be negotiated if a place is unionised and workers are well organised.

This Bill relates to people who would not be protected in the normal way. However, an employer could take the advantage and vary the working hours and he would be legally correct to do so. I appreciate what Deputy Rabbitte is trying to do, but my remarks should be considered. People should be protected so that their conditions are not made worse from the original date of employment.

Mr. Costello

I appreciate the point made by Deputy Fitzgerald. We should not include anything in this legislation which could worsen conditions for employees. The other side of the coin which Deputy Rabbitte alluded to relates to a degree of flexibility in certain types of work and to employees who could find themselves in a situation where they are given limited, if any, notice of the variation that will take place from day to day and week to week. It would be a pity if we put through this section, which prescribes a written statement of the terms of employment, but did not give some recognition of the entitlement of an employee to reasonable notice. The way that Deputy Rabbite is dealing with the issue is probably not the right way in the sense that he is specifying a time for which the notice must be given. So he is saying that in all cases the only reasonable notice is the previous week. Perhaps this amendment might be looked at again and maybe the Minister could take on board the sentiment behind it, that is, the desirability of having part of the written statement recognising the need for some reasonable notice being given without necessarily specifying in a statutory fashion the starting point for that notice, because of course there will be variations in terms of the nature of the work. As Deputy Sheehan said, certain types of work do not lend themselves to a specific time scale being set for which notice would be given. Certainly, the principle of notice and its recognition should be incorporated in the written statement.

Mr. S. Ryan

The fact that we are ensuring in this Bill that notice is provided to employees to get written confirmation of terms of conditions and overtime is important and represents progress. Going back through the years the whole aspect of overtime was something that in my experience caused more rows than anything else. Employers used the overtime situation to try to give priority to certain individuals, but thankfully that situation has changed. Giving written notice of overtime the previous week is in general terms a good thing. Where possible employers should be in a position to give the type of notice that would afford employees an opportunity of planning their home and family life.

The amendment does not take into account the flexibility required at times in certain industries. In the maintenance industry, for example, the work requirements are not known until the last minute, so how would the spirit of the Bill be met in order to give the employee ample notice of overtime? However, in meeting work demands and contracts, problems can occur at the last moment that may require the employee to remain working until midnight. So, while I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I do not think it provides the type of flexibility to cover all eventualities. That is the only difficulty I have with it.

Mr. McCormack

If the amendment was agreed or accepted in altered form, would that eliminate negotiations in the normal manner between the employer and the employee about the possibility of extra work at a particular time? If it was legislated for I do not see how it would eliminate the normal practice of this type of overtime or changed work practices being arrived at by agreement.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Like most of the other speakers I recognise the intent of Deputy Rabbitte's amendment. I also recognise the fears for flexibility or the infringement of employees' rights which could happen through the wording of the amendment before us. The workers whom Deputy Rabbitte seeks to protect through his amendment are not so much those who would be agreeable to work overtime when asked to do so; the issue is more one of casualisation, which I mentioned earlier. The type of exploitation where workers are told they are "on call", are then called in but sent home, is a danger. Unless I have interpreted the amendment wrongly, that is the type of person and the nature of employment Deputy Rabbitte is seeking to address. The difficulty then is, as Deputy S. Ryan said, that the amendment can be taken to mean other things and used legislatively that way.

There is existing legislation, such as the Shops (Conditions of Employument) Act, 1938, which covers workers in shops and restaurants throughout the country and hotels in the Borough of Dublin. All those people have entitlement to such information and procedures may be brought under the Act. There are also the joint labour committees which are comprised of representatives of workers and employers and have the power to impose employment regulations. An employment regulation order for the retail grocery and allied trades provides that any changes in normal rostered hours must be notified one week in advance. So, under existing legislation covering the type and nature of employment of which Deputy Rabbitte speaks, there is already a requirement that any change in normal rostered hours must be notified one week in advance, which would be more or less what the Deputy is speaking about.

Existing legislation deals reasonably adequately with what Deputy Rabbitte has set out. There is always the kind of individual employer who sometimes seek to work along the paths the Deputy discussed. I am particularly concerned about nurses. I know of cases where temporary nurses are on an "on call" list and there is no such thing as an on call fee.

Mr. S. Ryan

Not for nurses, anyway.

Mrs. O'Rourke

In other words, they are on call and may or may not be called. There are difficulties in other areas of employment too, If we ensure that everybody knows about existing legislation to protect them and if we work along those lines, we would be better served in this Bill. I met yesterday with ICTU representatives, Maura Sheehan and Patricia O'Donovan, who pressed this case very strongly. It is up to Deputy Rabbitte to press the matter if he wishes. However, if it is in order, Chairman, I would propose, in consultation with Members and other interests, to look at the matter on Report Stage with regard to devising another formula to try to encompass the thrust of what the Deputy is trying to do.

Chairman

Deputy McCormack, just one minute. I want to allow Deputy Rabbitte to respond. Have you a further point to make?

Mr. McCormack

Grocers would seem to me to be a very limited category. Does "grocers" cover supermarkets? It seems to be an outdated term and it is not enough to say that just because there is legislation there covering grocers we should be satisfied with that. I would like a definition of what grocers are now.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Supermarkets come under the title "grocers" or "grocery", if that is what the Deputy is asking.

Mr. Sheehan

What about the family shops?

Mrs. O'Rourke

Yes, they do, as long as they are selling groceries.

Mr. Rabbitte

I want to thank the Members who contributed. The task is in framing an amendment that meets a situation with which there seems to be some sympathy and which is a matter of concern to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, as I am aware. The task is also one of framing an amendment which will have application not just in 25 and a half counties but also in south-west Cork, which is very important.

Mr. Sheehan

Do not forget Fingal.

Mr. Rabbitte

I take the point that is made about the fishing industry and so on. Deputy Sheehan would agree with me that there is scarcely any area of industry, including the building industry, that requires some protection for the workers, including the share fishermen in the fishing industry.

The Minister is right that casualisation is the target and that casual workers are the main victims of that practice. However, neither the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938, nor the Joint Labour Committees adequately provide for the situation. The Joint Labour Committees' employment regulation order, for example, may only be registered after there is agreement between both sides of the industry. Again, agreement will not be achieved on the abuse and that is the problem.

Perhaps Deputy Costello has the best formula working on the point made by Deputy Bruton. I take Deputy Bruton's point that stipulating statutorily when notice must be given is probably too severe. The requirement to give reasonable notice would be objectively interpreted even in a manner that would suit the fishermen on the south-west coast. I hope Deputy Sheehan will agree. If there is a requirement to give reasonable notice, the reasonable notice will be interpreted in context.

How would the Minister respond if the amendment read that the statement will confirm that the employee be given reasonable notice of his or her daily starting or finishing time? If one looks at subsection (1), lines 31 and 32, the employer who wished to do as Deputy Fitzgerald has outlined can do so anyway under that subsection. Will the Minister acknowledge that workers in this category are occasionally abused? She mentioned that IDATU was one of the unions represented. There could be a situation where, when a worker's hours of work may be varied from week to week, the hours of work could be reduced by half. In that case the worker would be better off on the dole. They could be required to present themselves for work, with all the domestic implications of that, and their net pay at the end of the week could be less than what they would get at the labour exchange.

Mr. Kemmy

Completely unreasonable.

Mr. Rabbitte

What would be the Minister's response to that formulation?

Mrs. O'Rourke

I would have to discuss it with officials, interested Members and the draftsman. I realise the inherent dangers in having specific items, as in the matter we are discussing at present, in statutory form. At the same time, there is a need to address the abuses of which the Deputy speaks. One of them is the sometimes covert collusion between employers and social welfare whereby the employee works a certain number of hours and claims from social welfare to make up what the employer should have paid in the first instance. The Deputy mentioned that briefly in his contribution.

I will look at it and see what can be done on Report Stage. In light of the debate today and talks I hope to have with some of the Members and others, I will see what can be done. However, it might be difficult to accept the words now without the implications being teased out. I have taken note of Deputies' concerns and the thrust of the amendment.

Mr. Rabbitte

I accept the Minister's goodwill in the matter. I hope she can arrive at an acceptable formula. The Minister entered the caveat that she is not giving an undertaking. The Minister will agree that I am the last person to make a political point of it ——

Mrs. O'Rourke

The very first.

Mr. Rabbitte

—— and having regard to the support of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for this, I would not wish to run my colleagues in the Labour Party through the lobby on the matter.

Mr. Sheehan

A decent man.

Mr. Rabbitte

Therefore, I trust the Minister will avoid that situation arising. Although she has entered that caveat, I trust she will work to ensure that we will not have such a situation.

Chairman

I suggest that the Deputy withdraw his amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage as the Minister cannot give an assurance now.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The Deputy could put the amendment in altered form if he wishes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Select Committee adjourned at 1.27 p.m.