Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Friday, 21 Jun 1996

National Standards Authority of Ireland Bill, 1996: Committee Stage (Resumed).

NEW SECTION.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 15:
In page 15, before section 38, to insert the following new section:
38.—(1) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who immediately before the establishment day was a member of the staff of Forfás shall continue to be a member of the said staff and, where his or her principal duties related to a function which by this Act is vested in the Authority, shall discharge his or her functions in accordance with the directions of the Authority.
(b) Where immediately before such establishment a person was employed by Forfás on contract for a specified period or purpose related to a function which by this Act is vested in the Authority the contract shall, with the consent of that person, continue to operate with the substitution, for Forfás, of the Authority.
(2) The terms and conditions relating to tenure applying to a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) applies shall not be less favourable to the person than those prevailing immediately before the application of the relevant paragraph save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned; and if a dispute arises between Forfás or the Authority and any such person as to terms and conditions prevailing immediately before that application, the matter shall be determined by the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister.
(3) The terms and conditions referred to in subsection (2) shall specifically include the right to apply and be considered for appointment to vacancies which arise in Forfás, Forbairt or the Industrial Development Agency (Ireland) from time to time after the establishment day.
(4) Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned, a person to whom subsection (1) applies shall not, while in the service of Forfás or the Authority, as the case may be, receive a lesser scale of pay or be made subject to less beneficial terms and conditions of service than the scale of pay to which he or she was entitled and the terms and conditions of service to which that person was subject immediately before the establishment day.
(5) Until such time as the scales of pay and the terms and conditions under this section are varied by Forfás or the Authority, as the case may be, following consultation with recognised trade unions and staff associations concerned, the scales of pay to which any person was entitled and the terms and conditions of service, restrictions, requirements and obligations to which he or she was subject immediately before the establishment day shall continue to apply to that person and may be exercised or imposed by Forfás or the Authority, as the case may be, while they are in the service to which subsection (1) refers. No such variation shall operate to worsen the scales of pay or the terms or conditions of service aforesaid applicable to any such person before the establishment day, save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned.".
—(Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment.)

Deputy O'Rourke has tabled an amendment to amendment No. 15. It may be taken with amendments Nos. 15 to 20, inclusive, which it was agreed to take together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 15:

To delete subsection (1)(b).

In moving this amendment we wish the Minister to remove subsection (1)(b). This is the most worrying part of this legislation. In essence, it perpetuates what is already an inequitable situation whereby people have been on contract work for many years. They not alone have played a strong role in the organisation but have also been involved in social activities. The amendment seeks to remove this iniquitous paragraph which perpetuates instability through temporary contract employment.

Arrangements with regard to some members on contract work have been put to the principal union. The correspondence about that matter has not been agreed, mainly because in true trade union fashion — as the Minister will know having been involved with union matters for so long — they do not wish to leave any of their colleagues high and dry in such situations. If accepted, the offer could be construed as having the effect of leaving some members on perpetual contract employment with the instability that that implies.

Contract employment developed over many years under previous Administrations. There is now a chance to discontinue it by deleting subsection (1)(b) which puts continuous contract employment into legislation. I have never heard of a situation whereby rather than redressing wrongs one seeks to perpetuate them, which is what this subsection does. I hope the Minister will agree with me given his experience of trade union matters and his radicalism in regard to some issues. I hope he will see that it is wrong to try to divide members of an already unstable workforce into those who will enter secure employment and those who will remain in temporary employment.

I support Deputy O'Rourke. This is a new scenario in legislation being introduced. While directives are supposed to bring things into line, people are being disturbed, uprooted and their placement is unsatisfactory.

We saw an example of this matter on the Metrology Bill. There must be some compassion for people who are being uprooted, put into new positions or thrown aside. The Government should examine this because there will be similar legislation in the future. Recently we dealt with Bills concerning Forbairt, ForFás and IDA Ireland. I support the amendment, as will the vast majority of Members, on compassionate grounds.

The Minister must remember that people have to lead their lives. They are well trained and highly skilled people who have been in their positions for a number of years, yet suddenly they do not know their position. Their income may be the same but they have lost their permanent employment status which can be as upsetting to their families as to themselves. I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy O'Rourke's amendment on compassionate grounds. At least he should examine it carefully.

The Minister was caring and concerned about employees when he was in Opposition. He fought many battles against our party Leader, the then Minister for Labour, Deputy Ahern, in the House on behalf of employees when he was his party's spokesman on labour affairs. The Minister was also an able and understanding trade union official who always knew where the middle ground was. There is great merit in Deputy O'Rourke's amendment.

As the Chairman said, Deputy O'Rourke's amendment is, in effect, an amendment to amendment No. 15 that I introduced on the last day we were in session. It must be seen in perspective because this is a minor aspect of the wider amendment I introduced and which Deputy O'Rourke then welcomed. It is a far reaching amendment that totally changes the situation that obtained in the Bill up to now. The intention of the legislation was that — because we are compelled, for the reasons I set out the last day, to set up this authority — staff would become employees of the NSAI. I changed that in the wider amendment whereby staff transferred to the NSAI are retained as employees of Forfás but with all the rights and privileges of their existing employment with the NSAI and subject to the direction of the NSAI. I have long since passed the middle ground.

We are now talking only about contract staff. I do not mean I regard them as being of any less importance but I want to make it clear that we are talking about contract staff rather than permanent employees of Forfás. The effect of Deputy O'Rourke's amendment would be to excise from my amendment the specific reference to contract staff being allocated to the NSAI.

We do not want to go over the arguments we had the last day about why the Government feels the decision or establishing the NSAI has to be taken. I am concerned about the number of contract staff in the present arrangement but I accept that because of the nature of the functions to be carried out there will always be a demand for contract staff. However, it is wrong that people are in contract positions for so long and that two and three year contracts are renewed.

Back to back.

It is my hope and, I believe, the intention of the management is that a large number of those who are now on contract will be offered permanent employment, which is as it should be. That is desirable and right. I would like to see as many of the contract staff as is prudent in the circumstances being offered permanent employment. I sincerely hope that will happen speedily. I regret I cannot accept Deputy O'Rourke's amendment. In the future, the NSAI will recruit its own staff and get on with doing its own job.

My concern was to respond to the issues brought to my attention by the trade unions representing the existing staff. There is no point in going into the reasons for their concern now as I have responded to their fears. I suspect I have gone much further than most other Ministers would be prepared to go in the circumstances. I set that out very clearly in amendment No. 15. We are talking about one small aspect of it which, as enshrined in my amendment, will lead to permanent contracts of employment being offered to many of those who are currently working as contract staff.

I am most dismayed that the Minister of State called this first a "minor" and then a "small" aspect of the Bill. It is an aspect of great import to those affected by it. I do not regard the improving or disimproving anybody's life as a "minor" aspect. I recognise that a small effort is made in the amendment to meet some of the points put forward by the main union representatives, and in some of the amendments I tabled.

To put it plainly the wording of the section which I seek to delete will perpetuate contract work. The Minister of State said he regrets the use of contract staff but went on to say that the nature of the work of this body demands contract staff. I do not accept that. I am aware an offer has been made to some of the staff — I did not have to hear that from the Minister of State — and I put it on the record that was some way along the road. However, I equally put on the record that any trade union worth its salt will not see some of its members disadvantaged. That is the fault I sought to rectify. It is one of the root causes of my grave suspicion and dislike of this Bill.

I can discern throughout the Bill and in many of the amendments the hand of the secretary of Forfás, David Lovegrove who, I understand, is very interested in empire building in the authority when it is set up. It is inherently wrong for people to seek titles such as chief executive or operating executive while this section perpetuates contract employment, albeit in diminished numbers. Under this section a number of staff will be condemned to perpetual contract employment. I intend to press my amendment.

Deputy O'Rourke is trying to whip up a storm against the rule of play. The situation is not as she set out. Her amendment is a minor aspect of the amendment I put forward the last day we were in session. I did not say the issue is minor. The issue as the Deputy presents it is entirely false. Far from perpetuating contract employment, the arrangement suggested in my amendment will have the effect of putting many of those people into permanent employment for the first time. Deputy O'Rourke says she cannot accept that people are on contract employment. She accepted it for the years she was in Government. It was during those years that this contract employment phenomenon accumulated in the agency concerned. The Deputy did not seem to be to concerned about the situation then.

On a point of information, it was not my job. I was not in the Minister's position. I held the position of Labour Affairs, not of Commerce, Science and Technology. Deputy Ruairí Quinn dealt with these matters.

These people are being offered the prospect of employment. I am advised the nature of the functions being carried out and the occasional pressures that will inevitably mean there will be some contract staff always employed. This will dramatically change the situation which has prevailed up to now. Far from a disimprovement — the term used by Deputy O'Rourke — it is a significant improvement and is acknowledged as such. I do not know the merit in going back to the allegations of empire building and naming people in the House who are not here to defend themselves.

We are allowed to.

It seems to me to be a change from the normal processing of a Bill such as this. I repudiate the imputation of motives to any person who is not here to defend themselves. It is unnecessary in this debate. The amendment I moved on the last occasion stemmed from the several meetings I had directly, and those which have been held on my behalf, with the staff. It is a major improvement on the situation that has prevailed up to now. For that reason I cannot accept Deputy O'Rourke's amendment.

My amendment to the amendment is being pressed in the interests of fair play for workers.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 15 put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 12.

Brennan, Matt.

O'Keeffe, Ned.

Kitt, Tom.

O'Rourke, Mary.

Nolan, M. J.

Power, Seán.

Ó Cuív, Éamon.

Ryan, Eoin.

Níl

Bell, Michael.

Finucane, Michael.

Boylan, Andrew.

Fitzgerald, Brian.

Broughan, Tommy.

Nealon, Ted.

Byrne, Eric.

Rabbitte, Pat.

Costello, Joe.

Ryan, Seán.

Crawford, Seymour.

Sheehan, P. J.

Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, not moved.
Section 38 deleted.
FIRST SCHEDULE.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 16, paragraph 2(4), line 49, after "Government" to insert "and, in particular, providing for staff-representation on the Board".

I gave an undertaking on Second Stage to provide for staff representation on the board. I now propose to include in subparagraph (4) a provision to realise such representation and to insert a new paragraph (5) to provide for the means of achieving it. I have given the Minister power to make the necessary regulations and for consultation to be entered into with staff interests in the matter of worker representation of the NSAI.

The thrust of the amendments is admirable and my party has no difficulty with it. I will be moving the content of amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19 on Report Stage. Amendment No. 21 proposes to insert the phrase "and, in particular, providing for staff-representation on the Board". I welcome that and I am glad the Minister had a change of heart. The original provision was bald in the extreme. Amendment No. 22 proposes to insert a new subsection (5) to provide that:

The Minister, after consultation with any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned, shall make such regulations as are considered necessary or desirable in order to provide for staff-representation on the Board.

I agree with that.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 17, paragraph 2, before line 1, to insert the following:

"(5) The Minister, after consultation with any recognised trade unions or staff associations concerned, shall make such regulations as are considered necessary or desirable in order to provide for staff-representation on the Board.".

Has my notification of the three amendments for Report Stage been noted on the record?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 17, paragraph 2(5), line 3, after "Chairpersons" to insert "by the Board".

Will the chairperson be elected by the board?

The chairman is nominated by the Minister.

The Government should not appoint chairpersons.

As I understand it, the Deputy is talking about vice chairpersons.

There is provision for the selection of deputy chairpersons. It is not clear who appoints them or if they are needed. Will they be appointed by the board or by the chairman?

The board should appoint a chairperson or chairpersons and not the Government. That is an outdated system built around political favouritism and we do not appoint the best people. One often finds that a director of elections is appointed. I am sure the Minister has a few friends in mind for this position.

Note should be taken of a plea like that from Deputy O'Keeffe who, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, has argued that chairpersons of State boards should be appointed by the board. I am so overwhelmed by it that I should probably concede Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment, which relates to the position of the two vice-chairpersons. I will do that, even though my note says the opposite.

The Minister is so magnanimous.

There are two vice chairpersons and they are necessary. Perhaps Deputy O'Keeffe is right and it should be done by the board. I will accept his amendment.

The system of appointment of chairmen by the Government of the day is out of date in a modern environment with commercial oriented businesses. The board should be allowed to pick its own chairperson. Historically speaking, they were picked on friendship or other such grounds. I have no doubt that the Minister has some friends who are quite competent, but we should move away from this practice. The Minister should open up the process and show greater transparency at a time when we are being told about panes of glass and so on.

Is the Minister accepting Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment?

I am accepting Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment which relates to vice chairpersons.

Congratulations. The Minister of State is making history.

Is the Deputy talking about the chairperson or vice-chairpersons?

The amendment proposes to insert "by the Board" after "Chairpersons". Effectively the chairperson will be elected by the board. That is an historic occasion which is worth noting.

So the chairperson is selected by the board.

I congratulate the Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe.

I am accepting Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment. I cannot accept an amendment that is not before the House. Deputy O'Keeffe went on to make some points about chairpersons, which have much merit, but the amendment before the House relates to deputy chairpersons. I am accepting that in deference to Deputy O'Keeffe's arguments.

I thank the Minister for——

We need clarification on that because what I have before me states ‘after "Chairpersons" to insert "by the Board".'

There is no problem about clarity. Paragraph 5 reads:

One member of the Board shall be designated as Chairperson by the Minister and two other members may be designated as Deputy Chairpersons.

Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment would add "by the Board". I accept that the two deputy chairpersons should be appointed by the board.

As is the normal procedure in any board.

I thought the amendment would have the effect of having the chairperson elected by the board.

That will be a member of Democratic Left.

I want to clarify that again. The amendment would effectively allow for the election of the two vice-chairpersons of the board. That is the amendment which has been agreed by the Minister.

It is normal procedure that vice-chairpersons are elected by the members of the board.

I repeat that I can only take the amendment that is before me.

But the Minister is in favour of it applying to the chairperson as well.

If Deputy O'Rourke wants to put down an amendment on Report Stage to provide that the chairperson should be elected by the board I will deal with it. If she endorses Deputy O'Keeffe's position as Fianna Fáil policy for State boards in future, I will examine it very seriously.

What would you do with all your members on Combat Poverty and the other agencies where the Democratic Left is riding high?

That is another day's work.

I accept that Deputy Rabbitte has come a long way to modernise the system but I am concerned about Deputy Sheehan who has been nodding and wondering ——

He does not know what is going on.

——who is giving away what. It is obvious that Deputy Rabbitte will not have his way in appointing the chairperson.

This is still a rather unique occasion and I congratulate the Minister and Deputy O'Keeffe on reaching agreement. It is written into legislation that the vice-chairpersons of a board can be elected. That is a great day for democracy.

Chairman, do not overdo it. I never saw you being other than practical. Do not make a fool of yourself. With respect, I never heard of a vice-chairperson being other than appointed by the board. Democratic Left, Fine Gael and Labour have ridden rough shod and lectured us about appointments. It is a three way split.

I was simply congratulating the Minister and the Deputy on reaching agreement on what is a unique occasion. It is now built into legislation.

I am genuinely puzzled as to why the deputy leader of Fianna Fáil is upset that I should accept a Fianna Fáil amendment.

I am delighted, but the Minister should not make a mountain out of a molehill.

Perhaps she is sorry she did not table it.

The Minister should not be such a fool; he is making a fool of himself.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

The Minister is smirking like a Cheshire cat, yet he has thrown away the rights of workers in this Bill. He is making a show of himself before the workers of Ireland.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw that remark.

I will desist in deference to you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Deputy Sheehan appears to be worried about this change. This Minister will not have the right to appoint a chairman; a Fine Gael chairman will be appointed.

It looks like it.

I can see the convenor opposing acceptance of this amendment.

I never heard so much disunity about something which has been agreed.

Who do the Government have in mind? This is one of the rewards reserved for the convenor. Deputy Sheehan was to get one of the positions of vice-chairman

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 17, paragraph 2(8), line 15, after "members" to insert "provided seven clear days notice by letter or fax has been given of the meeting".

If five members constitute a quorum, it is reasonable that seven days notice of a meeting be given to ensure all members can attend. This is a problem on State boards, especially if there is favouritism. There is a trend in that direction and I have received complaints from State organisations about it. For that reason, I was advised to tabled this amendment.

There is a great deal of good sense behind the amendment. I could see a situation — I am not saying it would happen in this case — where a small clique could get together to convene a board meeting at short notice with the implications Deputy O'Keeffe outlined. I accept the amendment.

The Minister is scoring heavily this morning.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 17, paragraph 3, lines 19 to 21, to delete subparagraph (1) and substitute the following:

"3(1). On every anniversary of the establishment day, three of the members of the Board, excluding the ex officio chief executive, shall retire.”.

Of the 12 members subject to re-election, one quarter or three board members should retire annually. This would give some members fours years before retirement, which is long enough for any person.

Paragraph (3) of the First Schedule provides for the orderly rotation of the members of the board of the authority. It has been the practice recently to require one fifth of the members of the board to retire at annual intervals. With 13 members of the board, including the chief executive, this brings to two the number to retire each year. Deputy O'Keeffe has proposed that this number be increased to three. I consider that the minimum disruption should be caused to the continuity of work carried out by the board, while at the same time ensuring that new blood can be introduced at regular intervals. I regret I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

What is the fraction in relation to the appointments?

We round it up to the nearest figure available. On second thoughts, it is a reasonable amendment which I will accept.

I have never seen that happen before.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 18, paragraph 8(3), lines 38 and 39, to delete "to the Comptroller and Auditor General".

If the accounts go to the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is highly unlikely that they would be back before 30 September, as provided for in the amendment to section 7. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has too much to do and more important things with which to deal, it would be no harm to seek tenders from suitably qualified outside auditors. The board would appoint the auditors and after the first year, it could ask three or four firms to tender for the following three year audits and the body would not have to change the procedures and the schedules.

The Minister may agree the procedures in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General are too slow, are antiquated and need to be updated. We should employ outside firms like we do for consultancy work. An outside accountancy firm was brought in to investigate the Bord na Móna saga. We should consider outside auditors. Many international firms here do excellent work. They are independent and above board and nobody can question their integrity or ability. Accounts should be up to date. We should not be questioning them three years later and putting chief executives under pressure. We should have a modern system. I am sure the Minister will accept my amendment.

Paragraph (8) of the First Schedule is a standard provision which requires the Minister to lay before the Oireachtas the annual report and accounts of the authority not later than six months after the end of the financial year in question. It also provides that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall audit the books and accounts of the authority.

Deputy O'Keeffe has proposed to delete the reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General, that is, allowing an outside body of accountants to audit the accounts of the authority each year. The Comptroller and Auditor General is the office charged with ensuring that public moneys are spent in the manner in which they are intended and that they give value for money. Deputy O'Keeffe has further suggested the deletion of the necessity to place the annual reports and accounts before the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas. As public moneys are being provided and will continue to be for the running of the NSAI, it is important that the Oireachtas has every opportunity to ensure that the authority is operating within its own limits and that moneys are spent. I, therefore, cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

Although the Minister cannot accept my amendment, does he agree with what I said?

Deputy O'Keeffe is not acknowledging the extent to which the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been modernised and beefed up. I specifically draw his attention to the requirement in the Bill that the annual report must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas within six months. The Comptroller and Auditor General must do so annually. The delays which occurred previously are becoming a thing of the past and the Office is better geared to do this type of audit than before.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 20, paragraph 3(11), line 51, to delete "and in section 38".

This is a technical amendment. Superannuation benefits are not mentioned in section 38 and no reference is necessary here. I propose to delete the phrase.

Was superannuation mentioned in the previous schedule?

It is not mentioned in section 38.

Section 38 deals with the transfer of staff.

Is it not necessary to re-emphasise superannuation in that section? Why is it being deleted?

I am not deleting it. I understand it would be normal to set this out by way of Schedule.

Does that Schedule continue?

Yes, it is part of the Bill.

This is being put forward as a technical amendment but I want to discuss the matter of superannuation, which is being deleted. Why does the Minister want to do that?

I am not deleting it, I am only deleting the words "and in section 38".

Is the Minister deleting the later reference to superannuation?

Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 5, line 13, to delete "AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS".

I am told this phrase is normal in the Title of Bills but I put down this amendment because it is all-embracing.

Deputy O'Rourke is right. This is a standard phrase in every Bill passed by the Oireachtas and there is no reason this one should be different. Her suggestion to delete the phrase "and to provide for related matters" is unacceptable. The establishment of the National Standards Authority of Ireland as an independent statutory body is provided for in section 6 of the Bill and the transfer of functions relating to standard specifications and marks for commodities, processes and practices from Forfás to the authority is provided for in section 8. All the other sections come under the heading of "related matters" and the retention of this reference is accordingly necessary to incorporate the provisions which the Bill addresses.

I thank the Minister for his reply. This is unnecessary and useless legislation which will be costly. It is a monument to empire building and to the ambitions of would-be executives. For the first time that I remember, legislation is copperfastening the perpetuation of contract work, which is regrettable. The amendments I will put forward on Report Stage will deal with that issue and will also provide for negotiation rather than consultation. "Consultation" is one of those warm evocative words but it is no good if the Department or agency involved decides to do what it wants regardless. I will propose replacing the word "consultation" with "negotiation". As the Chairman and I know from our trade union experience, negotiation is different from consultation and so far on this Bill we have had more consultation than negotiation.

The legislation was prepared when the Minister of State took up office. I had no dealings with it so I do not know how it advanced. As Minister, I was required to set out standards, certifications and awards, and I was always glad to do so because excellence in any sphere is to be applauded, but that was the extent of my function in relation to the NSAI. When a Bill has been drafted Departments, their Ministers and officials always wish to continue with it even if it is extremely defective, as this has proved to be. I am pressing this amendment more in opposition to the spirit of the Bill than for the amendment itself.

I thank the Minister for accepting Deputy O'Keeffe's worthwhile amendments. There was a cynical attempt to portray that as flag-waving for democracy but it is far from it as Deputy O'Keeffe, and the Minister know. He had his tongue in his cheek when he said that.

Despite the acrimony this morning, the Minister and I often have a meeting of minds because we are both smart, sharp and quick. I am disturbed and dismayed that he has not taken on board the legitimate concerns of workers about the perpetuation of their unstable contract employment.

I thank Deputy O'Rourke and the committee for its co-operation in concluding Committee Stage. I repudiate her summary of the Bill because it is not in accordance with the facts. She said I inherited the Bill and she disowns it, which is unfair on her colleague Deputy Séamus Brennan, but on the subject of workers' rights I have changed it utterly. I have provided that the full-time staff will be retained as employees of Forfás, which is what they wanted. As to contract staff, the changes I have made will ensure that a high proportion of them will become permanent for the first time and that is desirable. It was also desirable to recognise that a small number of contract staff will always be required, given the nature of the functions to be performed. Further, and uniquely in a Bill such as this, I am proud and pleased to have provided for workers' representation.

This is a good Bill as a result of the scrutiny to which it has been subjected on Second and Committee Stages. I am genuinely at a loss as to why Deputy O'Rourke would wish to press an amendment such as this. She knows that if I were prepared to delete this phrase the Bill would be invalid. The long Title includes the essence of a Bill but the legislation contains many other items. The standard phrase at the end of the long Title includes the terms "and to provide for related matters". There are many related matters in this case, including staffing, the collection of fees and property, etc. and those mentioned by Deputy O'Rourke. It would make the Bill invalid if I agreed to the excision of that phrase. Perhaps that is the purpose of the amendment, but I accepted many changes and took several of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendments on board, including the provisions for worker representation, the arrangements to make contract staff permanent, the arrangements to allow the existing staff to stay in the employment of Forfás, the lead agency, and the provisions to allow staff apply for positions within the different agencies. If they want to apply for employment in the IDA, Forbairt or whatever the case may be, they are entitled to do so.

I am pleased we have overcome the difficulties which appeared to prevail earlier. I thank my colleagues on both sides for their co-operation, the Chairman for his patience and the staff for their work.

Is the amendment being pressed?

Yes. The Minister got it right for once; I intend to put it to a vote and render the Bill invalid.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 11.

Brennan, Matt.

O'Keeffe, Edward.

Kitt, Tom.

O'Rourke, Mary.

Nolan, M. J.

Power, Seán.

Ó Cuív, Éamon.

Ryan, Eoin.

Níl

Bell, Michael.

Byrne, Eric.

Boylan, Andrew.

Costello, Joe.

Broughan, Tommy.

Crawford, Seymour.

Finucane, Michael.

Ryan, Seán.

Fitzgerald, Brian.

Sheehan, P. J.

Rabbitte, Pat.

Amendment declared lost.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.

I move that the following draft report be the report of the Select Committee:

The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

I thank the Minister and his staff, the party spokespersons and colleagues for their attendance.

I thank the Chairman for his guidance on the Bill. When will Report Stage be taken?

I have not been notified when I will report to the Dáil. I will consult with the Deputy on that. Perhaps the assistant Government Whip can tell us if it is listed for the schedule?

I do not know.

I will ask the Clerk to consult with the Government Whip's office and communicate that to the Deputy as soon as possible.

The Select Committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m.

Top
Share