Vol. 600 No. 5
68 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he accepts the finding in the Central Statistics Office’s population and labour force projections which suggested that Ireland will need 50,000 immigrants a year over the next 12 years to meet labour force needs; if he accepts this projection; the way in which he intends to respond to the projection; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12095/05]
Economic migration policy in Ireland is predicated on economic needs and addresses identified labour and skills shortages. As the economy grew in recent years, there was a consequential increase in the demand for labour. Where suitable workers were not available in Ireland or the wider European Economic Area, which consists of the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and for this purpose Switzerland, the shortage was catered for through the work permit system.
In a gesture of solidarity with the ten new EU member states, the Government decided to allow free movement to nationals of these countries from the accession date on 1 May 2004. It was also decided that future economic migration from outside the European Economic Area would be confined to more highly skilled and highly paid personnel. In 2004, 34,000 work permits were issued, of which more than 10,000 related to new applications. In addition, in excess of 50,000 nationals of the ten new member states entered the State from May to December 2004.
I am aware of the projections by the Central Statistics Office to which the Deputy refers. These projections are based on certain economic growth assumptions. Taking account of the projected future pattern of labour migration, including returning Irish emigrants, I am satisfied that Ireland's labour needs will be met in the years ahead. To this end the new employment permits Bill being finalised will contain provisions which will enable me to respond quickly and flexibly to skills shortages as they arise.
Will the Minister address the question? He stated he is aware of the CSO report. The question I asked is if he accepts the projection that this economy will need 50,000 immigrants a year over the next 12 years if economic growth is to be maintained at a 3% to 5% range.
Does the Minister also accept that there is a need for joined-up Government? His Department is often working at variance with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in these matters. For example, a case I am dealing with today indicates that people who have long-established roots in this country who apply for naturalisation must wait for two years or more for their case to be heard. Does the Minister accept that the changing face of employment and social structure in Ireland requires joined-up Government in a way that does not currently pertain? Will he as Minister ensure that there is a cross-departmental focus on this issue so that there is an orderly transition to a changing demographic and ethnic mix in Ireland and that the needs of the economy are met in a structured, rational and acceptable way?
I accept the CSO projections but all such projections come with the qualification that they are based on a range of assumptions. Given the assumptions made, especially those concerning economic growth and demographic factors, we are working on the basis that the figures given are those that will be required on an annual basis. The numbers that have entered the country from the new accession states is about 60,000. I will try to get hard data on that. The total up to the end of December 2004 was 50,000.
I accept the Deputy's point on joined-up Government. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and I have agreed a joint process whereby we will initially create a virtual one stop shop for people that will embrace the entire immigration service, visas, work permits and so on. We are now engaged in a joint programme to achieve that. My Department obviously has responsibility for economic migration policy and the new legislation on work permits will reflect that. I also retain authority over the issuing of work permits. Ultimately we want to reach a stage where people apply to the one office, in essence, and everything else will follow from that. Historically, both Departments will have come to this point from different perspectives. My Department is anxious to facilitate economic development and growth to ensure there are no labour shortages within the economy. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a whole range of other objectives and protections to consider in terms of the wider State that it must statutorily deal with. The bottom line is that we are very anxious and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has recently issued proposals as regards the one-stop-shop approach. He has also recently issued a thoughtful publication on immigration services and policy generally. "Yes" is the answer to both questions.
I thank the Minister for his reply because it is important. Will he accept that there are basically three pillars to the issue? One is a rational policy of migration to meet the economic needs of the country and to allow people who want to increase their economic well-being to come here. The second is a rational policy to deal with asylum seekers, which is quite separate and often confused with the first pillar. The third is a rational and structured policy of integration to avoid strains and stresses on ethnic change in society. Will the Minister accept that this requires a joint effort from Government rather than it being the sole responsibility of an individual Minister? I deduce from his original answer that this type of thinking is now under way in his Department and within Government. When will the joined-up process manifest in structures that meet the needs of a changing Ireland?
It has already commenced. On the Deputy's first two points about the economic migration policy and asylum seeking, rational policies are in place as regards both of them. A sophisticated skilled forecasting mechanism has been in place since 1998. It is the future skills needs group established jointly by the Tánaiste and myself. If we have learned anything from that, it is the necessity for flexibility and adaptability in terms of projecting what will happen in global economic trends and the different sectors requiring skills at various times. In terms of asylum seeking, Deputy McDowell has a clear framework in place.
The current policy is a problem for a quarter of our businesses.
I am talking about the Government's position and perspective.
I am saying that.
We have had significant successes on both fronts. In terms of the integration issue, I accept this has to be a cross-Government approach. Again, there is evidence that employers in various sectors and under the aegis of different Departments have engaged in much proactive activity on the issue of integration, multicultural diversity etc., to try to provide a range of supports for people who come from other countries. We can do more and I have had preliminary discussions with the unions on how we may facilitate in particular the absorption and integration of workers from other EU countries, and indeed from outside the EU, who may have significant language difficulties, for example. By virtue of having significant language difficulties, they have problems in accessing information, which can be to their benefit, in terms of protecting their rights and so forth. I am broadly supportive of the points the Deputy has made. I would argue that we have rational policies in place in respect of the key issue of economic migration and asylum seeking.
Will the Minister agree that in the interests of joined-up thinking, it would be good to know not just the numbers of migrant workers coming in but also to have some indication where they are working? The national spatial strategy is now being treated more or less as a joke by reasonable commentators. From what the Minister says, we are possibly looking at 60,000 to 100,000. If a significant percentage of this number is working in the Dublin area, for example, this has massive implications for infrastructural investment and national planning. Does he or his Department have any information about where those workers are employed? It would also be useful to know what they work at.
Because we took away the work permit requirement for citizens of the European Union and particularly those from the new accession states, there is not a ready-made database with information on the people coming in. It means one has to go through CSO statistics or locally based assessments of what is happening in terms of where people are living and so on. The Deputy is correct. The economic growth rates we are likely to experience to the end of the decade mean growth in the economy of around 5.5% on average as well as growth in the labour force. The CSO is saying that the labour force will continue to grow from 1.9 million, for example, at 2004 levels, to about 2.4 million in 2016. That is a very significant increase, which basically impacts on infrastructure, housing, utilities and a range of issues, including education, health etc.
69 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he plans to make flexible working hours a statutory right for all workers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12191/05]
The question of the introduction of flexible working hours is a matter for negotiation between employees, or a trade union acting on their behalf, and employers. I have no plans to introduce flexible working hours on a statutory basis for all employees. Current legislation provides for statutory entitlement to maternity leave, adoptive leave, carers' leave and parental leave. Further legislation is currently being progressed in the Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to enhance certain provisions of existing legislation as regards parental and adoptive leave. It is intended that these amendments to parental and adoptive leave legislation will be finalised by summer 2005.
The Minister of State's response to this question makes an utter mockery of his reply to my priority question earlier. This is so if we are to take a leading role, as described in the work place strategy paper already referred to, in providing the flexible working environment that will aid competitiveness and help keep people in the economy who otherwise might leave. Is the Minister of State aware that there is an increasing incidence of people with young children, for example, who are exiting the workplace because they face the impossible choice between very expensive child care and the lack of flexible working conditions? It is very difficult for them to get back in. Will he agree that the provision of flexible working conditions in that regard would allow a much better quality of life to be provided for people rearing children and also keep them at work or allow them greater access to return? How can he say, on the one hand, that we are moving in this direction in terms of work-life balance, and then say he will not provide for guaranteed flexible working arrangements, contrary to what is best practice in many other European countries? It makes a mockery of all the Minister of State's good intentions and earlier assurances. He is ruling out the first major plank in such a strategy. It was very interesting to hear the direct evidence from child care providers and officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at this morning's hearing of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The evidence clearly was that the demand is for flexible child care arrangements because people want the mix of flexible working associated with this. They cannot manage with what the PDs and Fianna Fáil are forcing them to do, either to get back into the workplace full-time or exit totally. What is the Minister of State doing, by saying he will not allow that?
One of the great advantages of the current system is that the voluntary approach has been very successful. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, considerable numbers of workers are employed part-time, and very successfully. If at this stage we were to introduce a statutory right for all workers——
In rural areas the funding is being cut.
——along the lines outlined by the Deputy, many more problems would be created, instead of being sorted out. This is a matter which may be adequately addressed within the partnership approach and most successfully at the level of the individual enterprise where there is a willingness for this.
The Minister of State should give an example.
In the instances which the Deputy mentions where there is demand for such flexibility I have no doubt that it will be provided.
Leave it to the market. That is the Fianna Fáil approach.
This has been successful, has it not?
70 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of work permits issued to date under the new arrangements to give access to employment to the spouses of non-EEA nationals working in this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12094/05]
Under the arrangement to facilitate certain spouses, 1,019 work permits in respect of the spouses of non-EEA nationals working here were issued up to 15 April 2005.
Will the Minister take the opportunity to give an exposition of Government policy as regards the allowing of spouses of all work permit holders to come and reside in the country?
Will the Deputy clarify the last part of the question, about all permit holders?
I am asking what Government policy is as regards allowing spouses into this country. If tens of thousands of work permits are being issued on average, the current ballpark figure is between 40,000 and 50,000 annually. The number of work permits issued, more than 1,000 according to the Minister, is a tiny fraction of that figure. What is the Government's policy? What criteria is used to allow spouses to come to Ireland? Is it the case that where spouses are allowed to enter the State, they too are given work permits?
The Tánaiste, when Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, introduced an initiative in February 2004 to facilitate easier access to the labour market by spouses of certain skilled non-EEA nationals working in the State. Concerns had been raised about Ireland's continued capacity to attract high-skilled personnel, particularly in cases where spouses did not have an automatic right to work in the State. I recall when holding the health portfolio, this problem was most evident in the health services for the approximately 4,500 high-skilled nurses from outside the European Economic Area. They indicated their willingness to stay in the health sector depended on their spouses being allowed to join them and permitted to work. The arrangements made were confined to spouses working in the State on working visas or work authorisations, to spouses of certain intra-company transferees and spouses of certain academics and researchers. Medical professionals on work permits were dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Most spouses travelling to Ireland, arrive on a spouse's visa which does not allow them to work in the State. However, when they find a job they can obtain a work permit. The new rules are aimed at giving greater ease of access to employment for those spouses for the estimated 10,000 skilled non-EEA nationals working in the labour market. By 15 April 2005, up to 1,041 work permit applications were received in respect of the spouses of non-EEA nationals. Of those, 1,019 were granted. It is a fairly high response rate.
I am trying to elucidate what exactly is the Government's policy. It seems to be a very limited area, where the spouses of workers who are attracted to this economy and given work permits and are allowed to join them and work in this economy. I have dealt with several cases of where family members of doctors from abroad had difficulties in getting visitors' visas to enter the State. It links into the family friendly workplace issue. Will the Minister consider extending the supports for families to include the families of workers attracted to and required for our economy so that we do not have forced separation? Will the Minister agree that 1,000 work permits, against the backdrop of the number of migrant workers entering the State, is a tiny proportion? It will have the effect of making this economy unattractive for skilled workers when a more progressive policy is available in other developed European and north American countries.
Ireland is an attractive location.
We are for some skills.
I am unclear if the Deputy is referring to all workers.
I did not say that.
That is more in convergence with the Government's policy.
Will the Minister define the skills?
The work visa authorisation scheme was brought in for health care workers, construction professionals and IT workers.
Has this been reviewed yet?
It has not been reviewed since its introduction. The legislation allows us to either give a statutory underpinning to the scheme or review the policy. As these were areas of acute staff shortages in the economy, the Government changed the arrangements for those workers. Economic migration policy is adaptable and flexible to the given needs of a given time. It is not asylum policy that creates an open door, merging the asylum issue with economic migration. These are issues that need to be addressed collectively.
The Government has not facilitated such a debate.
A point was raised earlier that if so many workers are coming in, what will be the impact on education and health services and other structures? There needs to be limits, balances and some degree of caution in thinking this through to five year's time. Originally, work permits were not intended for the long haul but for the duration of only one to two years.
Will the Minister engage with the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business on this issue? He has made valid points that have not been debated properly with cross-party consensus. I am specifically referring to individuals whose spouses are in Ireland and who have skills that could add to the economy but are debarred from it. They feel excluded although they are resident in Ireland. Will a case-by-case based facility be put in place for those affected spouses to have their cases heard?
In the cases of spouses of skilled non-EEA workers, 1,041 applied for permits of which 1,019 were granted.
There is no basis for them to apply because there is no scheme.
I examined the cases of medical professionals on the old work permit scheme on an individual basis.
These numbers are modest. Will the Minister accept that if a much-needed worker is granted a permit, it is then reasonable that he or she should not be separated from his or her partner? In most Irish families, both parents work to maintain the household. These permit workers are no different. Is it not fair that they should be offered the opportunity for their spouses to work?
Not everyone comes to work in Ireland with a view to bringing the entire family.
I accept this.
Many skilled workers see it as a phase where they come to Ireland to earn higher wages and remunerate their families at home to increase their living standards. This is an understandable desire, as the Irish did it for many generations. There must be some balance in how we address this issue. Ireland has been more generous than most by having an open policy to inward worker migration. This was evidenced in our response in advance of the ten accession states joining the EU.
The numbers are very small.
The numbers are substantial. Approximately 50,000 workers entered from the ten new EU member states in six months because Ireland had no barriers and those workers did not require work permits. There is complete mobility for all citizens of EU member states to work in Ireland.
The point is that the numbers of workers from outside the EU are small.
71 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he has identified procedures or issues which tend to make the Irish economy less competitive; if he proposes to take remedial action in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12169/05]
239 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the extent to which he has identified the main factors leading to a lack of competitiveness in the context of the economy vis-à-vis the Euro-zone countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12495/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 71 and 239 together.
Each year the National Competitiveness Council undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Ireland's competitiveness performance and publishes its results in its annual competitiveness report. The council benchmarks Ireland's performance relative to competitor countries, including Euro-zone countries. Based on this analysis the council also publishes its competitiveness challenge report, which offers a list of policy recommendations aimed at enhancing Ireland's competitive position. These recommendations, presented to both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, make a significant contribution to policy development in all areas affecting competitiveness.
The most recent reports by the National Competitiveness Council were published in October 2004. Both reports found the economic environment for 2004 encouraging. The economy experienced significant improvements in the growth of GNP, employment and a reduction in the unemployment rate. According to ESRI's spring 2005 quarterly economic commentary, the economy will continue its robust performance with rates of 5.7% in real GDP and 5.0% for real GNP forecast for 2005, followed by rates of 5.5% and 5.8%, respectively, in 2006. Following an exceptional strong employment growth of 3% last year labour market conditions are expected to remain strong in both 2005 and 2006. It is forecast that the unemployment rate will stabilise to average 4.3% in both 2005 and 2006.
However, the council's analysis discovered several constraints and threats to future competitiveness. Chief among these was the increasing cost base relative to our trading partners. The 2004 competitiveness challenge report stated there is a need to make wage setting, governmental spending and taxation more responsive to changing competitiveness developments. We must address our increasing cost base to protect our competitiveness. This continues to be a high priority for the Government.
The Government has taken several steps to address the issue of prices and costs in Ireland. In budget 2005, by not increasing indirect taxes, the Government demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that the progress made on reducing consumer price inflation last year continues this year. The most recent consumer price index figures from the CSO show that inflation fell to 2.1% in March. That was the fourth consecutive month that Ireland's rate of inflation decreased.
If we wish to improve our competitiveness, Ireland cannot afford to have sheltered sectors of the economy immune from competition. The key to reducing prices and maintaining them at optimal levels in the long term is to ensure that vibrant competition is present in all sectors of the Irish economy. That is why the Government has strengthened the powers and resources of the Competition Authority, which is charged with combating anti-competitive practice in the economy.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The NCC also found that there remains an inconsistency between our image as a high technology economy and our underlying knowledge base. The Government recognises that the research agenda is one of the most important elements in terms of our drive to increase both competitiveness and quality employment now and in the future. A group involving representatives from industry, venture capitalists, the universities and institutes of technology, Departments and agencies has developed Ireland's research and development action plan under the aegis of my Department. The plan was published in August 2004. It sets a target of spend on research and development of 2.5% of GNP by 2010 and makes a range of high level recommendations in pursuit of this. These recommendations are ambitious but represent the type of actions Ireland needs to take if it is to continue to be competitive in a fast changing globalised economy.
The NCC also made a number of other recommendations in the areas of entrepreneurship, enterprise development, innovation and creativity. These and other recommendations are being considered by an interdepartmental group of senior officials, which is chaired by my Department. The interdepartmental group is currently preparing a report on the NCC's recommendations, which will be submitted to Government before the summer.
We should breathe a collective sigh of relief that the Government did not increase indirect taxes in the last budget, given that it has imposed 27 stealth taxes since the last general election. We should be pleased. Will the Minister accept that important recommendations have been highlighted to him and to the Department of the Taoiseach over a long period of time but no action has been taken on them? This is particularly true with regard to the regulatory burden faced by businesses.
Does the Minister intend to make changes to the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act, which was enacted some time ago, particularly with regard to the compliance statement? Does the Minister accept that the regulatory burden imposes considerable additional costs on businesses and consumers? The Taoiseach's publication, Better Regulation, highlighted this in January 2004 but, regrettably, no action was taken. Will the Minister make an attempt to implement the recommendations in that document? It recommended that any legislation introduced which affected business or consumers should be necessary, sustainable, accountable and transparent, without imposing an additional cost burden on business.
With regard to the Bill mentioned by the Deputy, my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, commented in the Seanad last week that certain aspects of the legislation would be reviewed and that the CLRG group would examine it. The Minister of State and I have heard a range of submissions and presentations from interested parties in various sectors who have concerns about over-regulation and some elements of the Act being too exacting.
I said that in my contribution to the debate on the Bill.
The Deputy did not.
Read my speech.
We listened to those views and have responded to them. However, the experience of many major companies that locate in Ireland — I have met many of them through IDA Ireland — is that Ireland is probably the best place to locate and do business in Europe. The structures of governance in Ireland are more responsive and agile in meeting the needs of enterprise and in removing barriers or obstacles that could inhibit the growth or establishment of a business.
With regard to the competitiveness report, an early decision taken by the Government was on the planning guidelines. It is interesting that on the one hand the Government is attacked for not responding to recommendations from bodies such as the competitiveness council but when it does respond, it is immediately attacked on all sides.
By whom?
The Oireachtas committee.
It did not make a recommendation about the planning regulations.
No, it opposed the Minister's decision.
I asked about the recommendations of the NCC.
Yes, but the parliamentary question is about the competitiveness council's report.
I did not ask about any report, I asked for the Minister's view.
That is the major vehicle for dealing with the competitiveness issue. We get an independent body, the competitiveness council, to assess the competitive challenges and to make recommendations to Government. When that happens, however, the Government is damned regardless of whether it implements the recommendations.
Research and development is a key competitiveness issue. We have invested significantly in this over recent years and we have work on hand to increase both the level and quality of investment in future.
What is the Minister's opinion of the cost of waste management and disposal and the contribution it makes to additional costs for business and consumers? What does he believe should be done about the waste management issue to ensure lower costs for disposal of waste so it will not be a huge burden on business and consumers in the future and to maintain our competitiveness?
Waste disposal and energy costs are two significant areas of concern for industry and competitiveness. I support the broad strategic approach being pursued by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which involves——
Ringaskiddy.
——prevention, waste reduction and elimination, recycling and so forth.
What about the narrow approach?
Historically, this country did not deal well with the waste issue.
No, we were forced to do it by Europe.
The catch up phase of the past seven or eight years has, by definition, resulted in far greater costs for local authorities in providing, for example, better landfills than were provided in the 1970s and 1980s. We did not deal well with waste over many decades. The availability of resources was a key issue. There was also a lack of knowledge and so forth.
The Government has been in office for eight years and has had plenty of money.
We have dealt with it in the past seven or eight years. There has been a substantial change in the last decade.
The Waste Management Act was introduced by the rainbow Government.
I referred to the last decade.
That was the last important legislation on this issue.
The Government will not implement it.
In the last decade there was a transformation in the way we dealt with waste compared to decades prior to that.
The lack of competitiveness mentioned by my colleague, in addition to the failure of a product to evolve, has had a devastating effect on Wicklow in the past couple of weeks. The Minister says we are in top place in Europe but that is little consolation when jobs can be moved to other countries. A total of 140 jobs at AO Smith Corporation in Bray were lost last week while 94 jobs will be lost at Veha in Wicklow town at the end of the month. Will the Minister use his Department's agencies to involve the workers concerned in a reskilling or retraining programme?
I have great sympathy for the workers concerned. In such circumstances we ask the State agencies to get involved quickly. FÁS offers services such as alternative job opportunities and training programmes which workers can undertake to enhance their skills and secure alternative employment. Enterprise Ireland works in an area which has suffered job losses through adding jobs in indigenous enterprises or through creating new indigenous start-up enterprises with the help of the county enterprise board. IDA Ireland seeks to attract investment into the region.
One must consider this in the context of the region. If one looks at single towns in isolation, one will encounter similar stories. However, there have been substantial increases in investment and jobs in Wicklow and south Dublin in recent years.
A total of 87% of our energy needs are met by importing fossil fuels. Since the National Competitiveness Council's report was published last October there has been another spike in oil prices. The price is $55 per barrel today. Does the Minister agree that this is a major threat to our competitiveness? We are uniquely exposed. What analysis has the Minister carried out in that regard and what remedial action can the Department take to tackle what I believe will be the biggest crisis for our economy and society in the next ten years?
I will not suggest I can solve global energy issues.
The local ones will do.
My reach does not extend that far. I accept the strategic points raised by the Deputy. We can support alternative energy sources by the provision of investment across Departments. Other Departments have greater responsibility on this issue.
I am interested in supporting research into energy conservation and the development of products and services, in the workplace and elsewhere, that would reduce dependency on fossil fuels. I do not have a great depth of knowledge about Japan but it appears to be forging ahead in terms of technology and is investing in products and services that focus on energy conservation and reducing its dependency on certain types of energy. That should happen here.
72 Mr. P. Breen asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of persons employed by the labour inspectorate based in his Department; the number of companies under investigation; the nature of those investigations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12056/05]
Following my recent announcement on 12 April, there are now 31 labour inspector posts. Immediate steps have been taken to source the new inspectors initially from within the existing staff complement of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Accordingly, I expect early appointments. There are currently 17.5 labour inspectors, whole-time equivalents, in the inspectorate. One inspector is currently on long-term sick leave and one job-sharing inspector is on extended unpaid leave. A further two inspectors are currently engaged in assisting the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
A number of other officials, at team leader and management grades within the employment rights compliance section, are considered inspectors and perform such duties as required. The inspectors are supported by six administrative staff and the inspectorate makes up but one part of the employment rights compliance section. The other parts consist of the employment rights information unit and the employment rights prosecution and enforcement section. There are approximately 600 cases currently under investigation by the labour inspectorate. The cases relate to various alleged breaches of employment rights legislation, including payment of wages, holiday pay and overtime.
Inspectors pursue allegations of worker mistreatment and when evidence of non-compliance with the relevant employment rights legislation is found, the inspectorate seeks redress for the individuals concerned and, if appropriate, a prosecution is initiated.
Much of this information was covered in earlier questions. When was this lack of resources in the labour inspectorate brought to the Minister's attention? Did it require the controversy surrounding Gama Construction to bring this matter to his attention and the flurry of activity which led to his announcement on April 12?
The issue was raised at the mid-term review of Sustaining Progress and I was not a Minister of State at that stage. At the first meeting I had with SIPTU, that was one of the issues raised. We have been seeking resources to announce the additional inspector since then. The announcement on 12 April addresses the immediate concerns.
It was brought to the attention of the Department 18 months ago that there was a major deficiency in the number of inspectors. There was clearly a number of complaints to the Department about these matters. Why is it that resources can be plucked out of the air when a controversy arises in this House? Following the revelations by Deputy Joe Higgins, 11 additional inspectors were approved at the drop of a hat. It must have been a low priority in the Department in 2004 when the Minister could not deliver a speedy implementation of these essential labour inspectors. A great number of inspectors have now been appointed in one fell swoop. There must have been a large deficiency in the Department, as well as many complaints, which led him to do this.
The Minister should be careful, or she might hit back. Mr. Kelly is doing his job over there now and he is very effective.
This issue was raised by the unions in the mid-term review. A recommendation was made at that stage. Ultimately, the recommended number of inspectors was 21. Clearly, the unions were extremely dissatisfied with that outcome. However, since Deputy Martin and I were appointed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, this matter has been raised frequently with us. It is fair to say that the appointments represent a substantial increase in a very short timescale.
There is a degree of brass neck in the response by the Minister of State. Parliamentary questions have been tabled on this issue for years. This issue was raised by myself, among others, in the debate on the health and safety legislation. The response he and his predecessor presented was that there was adequate inspection and no need for further inspectors. It is only the crisis of recent times that has changed the Minister's view. He can now find the resources, without it being signalled in the Estimates that were published, for a substantial increase from 17.5 inspectors, not the 21 we were led to believe, to 28 or more. When did it really dawn on the Minister that this substantial requirement was needed? When will these inspectors be put in place? When they are put in place, will that be adequate to police a workforce of 2 million?
I am not in the business of adjudicating on the strength of brass neck on this issue. A number of people have raised this need for an increase in the number of inspectors, Deputy Howlin among them. This issue was raised long before I was in the Department——
The response was that they were not needed.
——and I would not have been answering parliamentary questions at that stage. In October or November 2004, I felt that additional inspectors were required. I discussed the matter with the Minister, Deputy Martin, who was of the same view. The necessary financial provision was not there for them. In view of those circumstances, the additional appointments represented a very quick response.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
