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.