Labour Affairs: Motion.

Mr. Morgan

I move:

That Dáil Éireann,

affirming the responsibility of the State to uphold the rights of workers and, in particular, to ensure, protect and uphold the realisation of the following workers' rights:

—the right to be free from exploitation;

—the right to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families and to equal pay for equal work;

—the right to form, join and be represented by trade unions, to negotiate contracts of employment and to engage in industrial action;

—the right to work in safe conditions that are not harmful to health and well-being; and

—the right to access lifelong learning opportunities and vocational training and retraining;

recognising:

—that the failure to give adequate priority and focus to labour affairs finds expression in a failure to fully uphold Ireland's obligations under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Articles 1 to 10 of the European Social Charter (Revised), and in the failure of the State to ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and members of their Families;

—that the current configuration of labour affairs as a secondary responsibility within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, whose primary responsibilities are enterprise and competition policy, prevents the State from giving the required priority to the protection of workers' rights and to upholding labour standards;

—the inherent conflict of interest which exists within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as a result of that Department having responsibility for both enterprise policy, including competition policy, and labour affairs. This conflict is exemplified by the attack by the Competition Authority, which falls under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, on the right of certain freelance workers, including musicians, actors and journalists, to be collectively represented;

—the failure of the State to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers as evidenced by the numerous incidences of abuse of these workers, which have come to public attention during the past 12 months;

—the failure of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to ensure that the State has a labour inspectorate of sufficient strength and with sufficient powers to enforce existing employment law; and

—the increasing priority that must be given to the protection of labour standards in light of the current push by certain employers to drive down pay and conditions;

shall, in order to ensure that appropriate priority and focus is given to the protection and promotion of workers' rights and in order to replace the current model of weak labour regulation and non-enforcement with comprehensive regulation, including the increased use of Employment Regulation Orders and Registered Employment Agreements, and stringent enforcement, establish:

—a separate and stand-alone Department of labour affairs whose primary responsibilities shall be the improvement and enforcement of employment rights and entitlements, the protection of labour standards, industrial relations, the promotion of health and safety at work and the implementation of policies to improve work-life balance and to promote lifelong learning; and

—an Oireachtas joint committee on labour affairs.

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Crowe, Gregory, Joe Higgins, Healy and Eamon Ryan.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Mr. Morgan

Sinn Féin has tabled this motion because we seek an end to the current regime of weak regulation and poor enforcement of workers' rights. The current configuration of employment as a secondary responsibility within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, while its primary focus is on enterprise and competition policy, is a major cause of the failure to give appropriate priority to workers' rights. We argue that to redress this position there must be an immediate decoupling of departmental responsibility for labour affairs from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The early 1990s saw a shift in the approach to labour affairs and industrial relations. This commenced with the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This legislation hamstrung the development of trade unions and the ability of unions to act on behalf of their members. It put restrictions on strike action, ballots and secondary disputes. Then, in 1993, the Department of Labour was abolished completely under the then Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition Government. The Department of Enterprise and Employment was created, later becoming the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This represented a significant backward step, effectively demoting labour affairs and deprioritising the promotion and protection of workers' rights. Labour affairs is now handled primarily by a Minister of State.

The chief focus of the Department is on enterprise and competition policy. The largest proportion of the funding provided for the Department is allocated to these areas rather than to employment rights or industrial relations. The Labour Court is under-resourced, resulting in lengthy waiting times for processing cases. The labour inspectorate, with only 31 inspectors, falls far short of what is required to enforce existing labour law for an expanding workforce. Irish workers enjoy inferior work-life balance rights to their European counterparts. The plight of low paid workers is not being addressed given that the richest 20% earn 12 times as much as the poorest 20%. We do not have equal pay for equal work as gender pay differentials persist. Anecdotal evidence suggests that civil servants within the Department are often unsympathetic to workers' rights related issues.

Sinn Féin has brought this motion before the Dáil because there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as it is structured; this is a contradiction which is harmful to the interests of workers. On one hand, the enterprise agencies and in particular IDA Ireland, when seeking to attract foreign direct investment, promote the State's weak regularity regime and absence of compulsory trade union recognition as positive attributes while, on the other hand, a unit within the Department has responsibility for the promotion of employment rights. Basically, one section of the Department brings in companies noted for their anti-union stance while another section, theoretically, is supposed to ensure that workers' rights are upheld. That is an impossible position.

This contradiction is exemplified in the attack by the Competition Authority, which falls under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, on the right of certain freelance workers, including musicians, actors and journalists, to be collectively represented. The Competition Authority is treating these mainly low paid workers as commercial companies and using a measure designed to prevent price-fixing to attack their rights. Yet, there is no advocate in Government who is willing to act in defence of these workers.

The Department pursues a policy where workers' rights are sacrificed to increase competitiveness. The Department has clearly accepted the arguments of those who want us to emulate the low cost base in eastern Europe and developing states through cutting labour costs by interfering with workers' rights, standards and terms of employment and by the displacement of workers and their replacement with migrant workers on lower pay and diminished conditions. We all want a competitive economy but competitiveness achieved on such foundations is not acceptable.

It is worth noting that it is not customary in other European states for one Department to deal with these contradictory responsibilities, further demonstrating that it is not good practice. France has a Minister for Employment, Social Cohesion and Housing, Finland has a Minister of Labour Affairs, Norway has a Minister for Labour Affairs and Social Inclusion and Germany has a Department of Labour and Social Affairs. At EU level, labour affairs and workers' rights issues are dealt with by a Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

When the Minister of State contributes no doubt he will claim that enterprise and employment are complementary and not contradictory. There are those who support the current configuration and who have benefited from it. Those who benefit include the unscrupulous employers who exploit a weak regulatory regime and insufficient enforcement to increase their profits by exploiting their workers. Another group who benefit are employers who risk their workers' health and safety by cutting corners and who make the calculation that the savings to be gained by risking the health and safety of their workers outweigh the penalties for non-compliance, if caught. SIPTU has described the penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation as "so paltry as to have absolutely no deterrent effect". The State's largest union has said it no longer has confidence in the current regime for the enforcement of workers' legal rights because of the grossly inadequate resources provided to the labour inspectorate.

The motion tabled by Sinn Féin sets out the rights which must be at the core of employment policy. We need a Department of labour affairs that is focused on upholding the rights of workers to ensure they are free from exploitation and have a right to a fair remuneration, sufficient for a decent standard of living; equal pay for equal work; and work in safe conditions that are not harmful to their health and well-being. The rights of workers to form, join and be represented by trade unions, negotiate contracts of employment and engage in industrial action must also be upheld and promoted. The State has obligations to uphold many of these rights under a number of international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the revised European social charter.

There must be a recognition of the need to reform the Government's approach to labour affairs. Economic growth has been accompanied by a growth in the exploitation of workers. In the face of globalisation and aggressive corporate greed, the necessity to protect workers has never been greater. Labour standards and workers' terms and conditions of employment are under increasing pressure and attack. This is obvious from the growing revelations of exploitation of workers and from the anti-union actions of an increasing number of employers.

Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Ferris will go into greater detail on these issues.

Sinn Féin rejects absolutely the notion that workers' rights must be bargained and fought for across the table at social partnership talks. The rights of workers are fundamental to society and, consequently, the Government has an absolute duty to ensure these rights are upheld. We cannot continue with the regime of weak regulation and feeble enforcement. It is vital that there is a voice at Cabinet making the case in defence of workers, a voice which is not compromised by other primary and contradictory responsibilities. There must be a robust and focused response to the race to the bottom. That must come through a stand-alone department of labour driven by a minister for labour affairs and scrutinised by an Oireachtas joint committee on labour affairs. That is what is necessary and that is what the Taoiseach must deliver.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

In Sinn Féin we believe that workers' rights are human rights. As such, all workers should be entitled to expect equal access to, and enforcement of, their rights.

In stark contrast, this Government is happy to create different levels of rights. Current Government policies have made migrant workers particularly vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous and greedy employers. Even within the category of migrant worker there exists a variety of different levels of rights regarding fair pay, the ability to change employer and the accompaniment of one's family. The top tier of migrant workers in this State, that is, those on higher incomes, have considerably greater rights and freedoms than lower income migrant workers. This Government's practice of discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic grounds runs contrary to Sinn Féin's belief in the equality of all workers.

The message from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, was that inequality is good for the economy. That was a signal to employers that they could go ahead and trample on the rights of workers.

Mr. Morgan

It was disgraceful.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Minister's message was that only some workers' rights apply. That was from the Minister who is preparing the immigration and residency Bill. I wonder what will be included in that.

Mr. Morgan

The Minister should be sacked.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The State's failure to prevent the exploitation of migrant workers is clear from the numerous incidents of abuse that have come to public attention in the past year. I will remind the House of a few of them. Ms Oksana Karamjana, a Latvian crew member on the Irish Ferries ship the MV Normandy, told “Prime Time” that her three-month contract involved working seven days a week for 12 hours per day with no holidays or days off. Kilnaleck Mushrooms in County Cavan dismissed 14 female mushroom pickers in recent weeks after they complained about a change in their work procedures which involved working between 80 and 100 hours per week for an average of €250, about a third of the national minimum wage, and without any pay slips or contracts of employment. Everyone will remember the Gama workers and everything associated with that incident, which was and remains a scandal. Domestic workers who work alone in private homes are even more open to exploitation because they have little access to trade unions or information about their rights.

Few of the all too frequent abuses of workers rights receive media or public attention. The most common complaints about employers' treatment of migrant workers involve the denial of work contracts, statutory break times, wages, days in lieu for working bank holidays and the refusal to award the correct minimum wage entitlement. Employers often fail to renew work permits while they tell their employees that they are in the process of renewing them. Many migrant workers are paid less than their Irish counterparts.

The State has facilitated many of these abuses by failing to take action on them, by refusing to provide a properly resourced labour inspectorate and by failing to ratify the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. In 2004 the labour inspectorate carried out a mere 462 inspections under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. That is a disgrace.

Our motion is straightforward, positive and constructive. It seeks to improve the enforcement of workers' rights and entitlements. It seeks substantially to increase penalties for non-compliance with employment rights legislation. This would mean a large increase in the labour inspectorate to at least 75 inspectors and the provision of proper legal and other professional support for the inspectors. All these issues should fall under the remit of a separate and stand-alone department of labour affairs. Work permits should be granted to employees rather than employers. All workers deserve protection of their rights. Sinn Féin's proposal would move this State in the right direction. I urge the House to support the motion.

Mr. Crowe

Last year 71 employees lost their lives. This is an increase of 21 from the previous year. The fact that workers lose their lives just because they turn up to carry out their day's work is a scandal. We believe that a greater focus and priority would be given to health and safety under a stand-alone department of labour affairs.

The majority of work related deaths occur in the construction industry which is the most dangerous industry for employees. In the past year the industry has witnessed a disturbing near 50% increase in fatalities, as the 16 deaths in 2004 were followed by a further 23 last year. Workplace safety is a basic entitlement that should not be sacrificed by greedy employers who cut corners at the expense of safety. Farmers are the next most prone to fatal accidents, with 17 deaths in the agricultural sector last year, including two child fatalities.

In September 2005 the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union, SIPTU, warned that work related fatalities could be up to ten times higher than reported. For example, those killed road in traffic accidents who were driving as part of their normal work are not included in occupational fatality statistics. SIPTU estimates that up to a third of all road accidents are work related. To get accurate figures, we also need an investigation into the number of respiratory illnesses contracted at work that have led to fatalities outside the workplace.

SIPTU represents 15,000 migrant workers and has two full-time staff to cater for the most vulnerable workers in our society. There has been great concern over the number of work related deaths among non-nationals. In 2005, such deaths accounted for roughly one eighth of total work related deaths. Employers should be forced into protecting all workers and should be obliged to provide non-nationals with safety information and training in their own language if they do not speak English.

Up to 70 health and safety labour inspectors are needed, but we have fewer than half this number. It is an indictment of this Government that the Health and Safety Authority is so under-resourced. Although Sinn Féin members welcomed the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, we had and still have grave reservations. Although the significant increase in fines and penalties to deter non-compliant employers is progressive, fines are not enough. Can a fine really be justified as a suitable punishment for an act of negligence that leads to a worker's death? As Deputy Morgan stated, some corporations make the calculation that the savings to be gained by risking the health and safety of their workers outweigh the penalties for non-compliance if they are caught.

Mr. Morgan

That is a scandal.

Mr. Crowe

Sinn Féin supports the Law Reform Commission's recommendations of 2003 that corporations should be subject to criminal liability for corporate killing. Fines are obviously not enough of a deterrent. I reiterate our policy and demand that the Government establish a crime of corporate killing in law, thereby ensuring that company directors adhere to health and safety regulations. We need severe penalties that constitute real deterrents.

The Building and Allied Trades Union, BATU, and others have slated the Revenue Commissioners for facilitating so-called self-employment. Bogus self-employment directly affects the health and safety of such workers because, if they are injured in the workplace, they have no entitlements or protections. That is scandalous.

I welcome the Government's announcement that it will finally implement the construction regulations that were drawn up by the Health and Safety Authority more than two years ago. However, the Government's procrastination in failing to implement this legislation earlier has resulted in further tragedies.

We must all remember that most accidents are preventable. By working to secure all workers' health and safety rights, by increasing the number of labour inspectors and by establishing corporate killing as a crime, the majority of such accidents could be stopped. Workers' safety should take precedence over profit and greed. People should come before profit and workers should never have to pay with their blood or lives for their employers' neglect.

Mr. Gregory

Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht iomlán a thabhairt don tairiscint seo i dtaobh cearta oibrithe agus go háirithe don tairiscint gur cóir Roinn faoi leith a bheith ann mar Roinn gnothaí oibrithe, chun cearta oibrithe a fheabhsú, a neartú agus a chur i gcrích.

I support this timely motion in favour of workers' rights. Workers throughout this country have good reason to be concerned that their rights are being increasingly undermined. Following the recent scandals at Gama and Irish Ferries is the Collen Brothers dispute, which has resulted in the jailing of workers, and now in my constituency the treatment of workers in the Gresham Hotel is developing in an indefensible way. The hotel management is orchestrating a deliberate policy to undermine the established pay and conditions of the workers. The staff have been served with letters telling them they must take turns in signing on the dole for periods of four weeks at a time. This is part of a novel cost-cutting exercise, at the State's expense, to benefit management at a time when the hotel is full to capacity every week. This policy is also aimed at intimidating the workers. Even the longest serving staff, including porters who have served for over 30 years, have been given notices obliging them to sign on the dole for periods of four weeks.

The scandal is that meanwhile the hotel is short-staffed and today managers cleaned 42 rooms rather than recall the five workers who had been laid off. The workers in the Gresham are fearful as to what will be the next move by management in this calculated attempt to force them to accept less favourable conditions of employment. There is no State intervention to defend the rights and the established pay and conditions of the Gresham staff.

This motion refers to the right to access lifelong learning and training opportunities. It is incredible that this country remains the only one in Europe that does not have a further education sector. The Government, particularly the Minister for Education and Science, continues to refuse the necessary resources and structures to the PLC colleges, the primary providers of second chance education. The Government has refused the €45 million they require to establish themselves as a specialist further education sector. This was recommended in the McIver report arising from a commitment in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. Ironically the same sum of money set aside for, and wasted on, electronic voting machines continues to be denied to the PLC colleges. As this motion states, this denies many disadvantaged people the right to access lifelong learning opportunities and training.

Today 320 workers in the NEC plant in Ballivor lost their jobs. This is part of a worrying trend, with these jobs moving to the Far East. What steps will Government take to ensure alternative employment for workers such as these?

Mr. J. Higgins

The issues of workers' rights raised in the Sinn Féin motion are vital and I agree with all the rights put forward that should belong to the workers. I do not object to the proposed Department of labour affairs standing alone. The main problem at the moment is not the lack of such a Department but that for nine years we have had a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, a right wing Government consciously pushing a neo-liberal agenda with serious repercussions for workers' rights, particularly an attempt to shove down workers' wages and conditions.

Sweden, Britain and Ireland did not embrace EU expansion out of generosity but because workers from eastern Europe could be brought in and utilised as an agent to force down the level of wages, particularly in construction and some other industries. I was amused by the Government amendment to the motion which refers to measures taken to achieve compliance by "a minority of employers who fail to fulfil their statutory responsibility towards workers", as if non-compliance was a minor problem. What about the 130,000 construction workers who, according to an estimate of the Pensions Ombudsman, who is no revolutionary socialist for sure, have been left non-compliant, bereft and negligent of a pension by the actions of the construction bosses by whom they are employed?

The Pensions Ombudsman added that this was a criminal offence punishable by jail and-or fines. Three building workers from a Collen building site are in jail tonight because they were pushing for certain rights and a certain measure of justice for local workers in the area. Dozens of gardaí have been employed on Collen picket sites to push non-union labour through the picket and the protest.

This company employs sub-contractors who blatantly defy pensions legislation and the pension rights of workers. Has a single garda interviewed one of these sub-contractors? What are the chances of these sub-contractors, engaged in a criminal action, rubbing shoulders with the three lads in Mountjoy before this week is out? The chances are not very high. This is the level of hypocrisy we face in this Government.

In regard to Gama Construction, the labour inspectors conducted a thorough investigation. The Government was obliged, as a result of public pressure, to facilitate the struggle for justice. Incredibly, the High Court shielded Gama by suppressing the inspectors' report. I have not seen the report but I believe it would have told the workers' story. How ironic that their lordships in the Four Courts protected the exploiter. Where would the Gama workers be today if they depended on their lordships for such protection. Workers must rely on their own strength and their trade union organisations, yet we must push——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order to criticise in this House decisions of the Judiciary.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Judiciary disgraced itself.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in order either to mention firms outside the House which are not here to defend themselves, particularly where the incidents are not in the public domain. This applies also to the previous speaker.

Mr. Morgan

The Judiciary should be criticised, especially in this House.

Mr. J. Higgins

The Judiciary's wig fell over its eyes when it came to dealing with Gama. It must be named truly. We fought a massive battle in very difficult circumstances and when the courts protect the exploiter, where does that leave us? We need more resources for the labour inspectorate and for measures to ensure compliance, but workers have to rely on their own organisation and particularly their trade union organisations.

Mr. Healy

I support this good and timely motion which deals with support for workers' rights. There is no doubt that the race to the bottom started when the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition came to power in 1997. This is evident in the Government's support for Irish Ferries and the MV Normandy and the support of the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, for the services directive.

I concur with the previous speakers who condemned the jailing of three BATU members for demanding the right to have a reasonable amount of local labour on building sites and to ensure trade union members are employed. I compliment Joanna Delaney who was recently sacked by Dunnes Stores for wearing her union badge. Every worker should have the right to wear the emblem of the union of which he or she is a member.

I concur with the motion which states the need for a separate, stand-alone labour affairs ministry. There is a serious conflict of interest between enterprise and trade and labour. Deputy Joe Higgins referred to the example of Gama as proof of this. A separate labour affairs ministry is required to stand up for workers' rights at the Cabinet table.

The labour inspectorate is understaffed and under-resourced. Good legislation is no use if its enforcement is not funded and if the people are not available to implement it. The number of on-site investigations has decreased significantly. A doubling or trebling of the labour inspectorate is required.

Deputy Gregory referred to life-long learning but the Minister for Education and Science de-prioritised this area. Funding for schemes such as Youthreach and the vocational training opportunities scheme, VTOS, adult education and Traveller education was increased by a mere 3.8%, whereas the overall education budget increased by more than 8.8%. I support the motion.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

As the representative of the Green Party I commend Sinn Féin on tabling this motion which the Green Party fully supports.

I am interested to hear the views from the other side of the House. The motion proposes that rights should be protected. The other proposal in the motion is most prescient and well thought out. It proposes the separation of the employment brief from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There is a case to be made that a conflict of interest exists between the ambitions, effort and intention of the enterprise side of the Department and that of the employment side of the Department which should champion those rights. This conflict would be resolved by the separation of the employment section into a separate Department.

This could be termed a reshuffle which is a frightening word for the Government benches to hear. The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, may laugh but the people behind him were crying all last week.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

They have all cried off tonight.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Yes. The Progressive Democrats Members are also noticeable by their absence. I wonder if this shows their level of interest in this debate.

I suggest a Department dealing with social, family and labour or employment affairs. This would provide an historic opportunity to connect those who are unemployed with those who are in the workforce. It would help provide a critical connection with our work-life balance and with families, those who undertake valuable voluntary work and those working as carers within families. Such a Department would be a coherent and useful unit which would work very well.

I suggest the communications brief should be brought back into the Department dealing with enterprise and trade. It sits much better in a pro-enterprise culture and would facilitate the introduction of broadband technology and other infrastructure which would mark the country as an enterprise location. I recommend that Departments should be reshaped but not in the way the Taoiseach seems to do things, by trying to avoid hurting anyone's feelings or by trying to look after his own internecine needs in Fianna Fáil.

There does not necessarily need to be a conflict of interest within the present Department between the promotion of workers' rights and the development of an enterprise culture. This country must not participate in a race to the bottom by being one where products are processed without added value. It is recognised that the strategic development which must be undertaken is to add higher value to enterprise and aim for more creative, innovative and enterprising companies rather than relying on direct investment from foreign multinationals who use Ireland as a launching pad into the European Union. That policy has proved to be very successful but it is a risky policy especially if borne on the back of low wages and conditions in this country while the sales and intelligent marketing function take place outside the country.

We need to move in the direction of encouraging the brains of enterprise and creativity and innovation to stay here. This has been recommended in the latest enterprise strategy report. The conditions for those working under such a strategy should recognise workers' rights and allow them freedom, responsibility and the environment in which to be creative and innovative. Such workers will enable Irish enterprise to move forward. This is the opposite to a punitive and mean working environment looking to add the ha'pence to the pence as products are sold on to other countries. The right to access lifelong learning and opportunities and vocational training fits in perfectly with the higher value enterprise culture which we should look to develop.

Those on the other side of the House could not disagree with the right of all to work in safe conditions and must support the proposal to ensure such a right exists in every workplace and building site, office and factory. I doubt if anyone on the other side of the house would dispute the right of a person to form and be a member of a trade union. The right to fair play is a crucial provision, especially in a country which is changing and opening up. The real fear is not that workers will be displaced but that the Government would be happy to see wage levels driven down so that the minimum wage becomes the standard rather than what it should be, a protection for those at the very bottom. I also stand by the right to be free from exploitation. I refer to Deputy Joe Higgins who outlined some of the cases of exploitation.

I support this motion and it is a question of how the proposal can be achieved. I fear that on the other side of the House is a Government that believes its own propaganda. It is sitting pretty thinking it created the economic boom by looking after business at all costs. This is not the clever way forward in terms of enterprise or economic development. I commend the motion and will be interested to hear the Government's response and that of the Progressive Democrats to this useful and interesting debate.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen)

I wish to share time with Deputy O'Connor.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Killeen

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"welcomes,

—the commitment of the Government to uphold the rights of workers, which are set out in Irish labour law. These rights include:

—statutory rates of pay;

—limitations on hours worked;

—health and safety provisions;

—statutory redundancy; and

—carers, maternity and adoptive leave;

—the record of the Government in introducing a comprehensive range of legislative and other measures which are aimed at and have significantly improved the terms and conditions available to workers in the Irish labour market, including health and safety, part-time and fixed-term workers, national minimum wage levels, substantial increases in redundancy entitlements and improvements for carers and parents;

—measures taken by the Government to improve compliance by a minority of employers who fail to fulfil their statutory obligations to their workers. These measures include:

—a substantial increase in the number of labour inspectors; and

—active engagement with the social partners to agree significant improvements to the regime for employment rights compliance;

—the fact that the interests of both employers and employees are overseen by a single Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment since enterprise and employment policies are complementary and not in competition with each other, and notes that it is only by growing our competitiveness, increasing our trade performance and expanding enterprise development that this Government in particular has produced sustainable high quality jobs while simultaneously ensuring that Ireland has a well-trained and confident workforce, which enjoys the protection of our health and safety and employment rights legislation;

—the efforts of the Government to promote the training and retraining of those in employment in the context of lifelong learning through its One Step Up and other initiatives;

—the commitment of the Government to uphold Irish and EU law and wider international conventions, where these are consistent with our EU obligations and with our social and economic objectives; and

—the Government's commitment to the social partnership model as the most appropriate mechanism for advancing these issues in the interests of both employees and employers."

I am delighted to have this opportunity to address the House this evening. As Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, I am acutely aware of the deep and unwavering commitment of the Government in the area of employment rights provision, as evidenced by the various actions and the legislative progress achieved over the past eight years. Particular highlights include the introduction of the national minimum wage in 2000, implementation of the fixed-term work provisions and the recent further strengthening of the labour inspectorate. The latter is an issue to which I will return because I believe that we are moving ever closer to a situation where some novel and innovative thinking is presenting us with options that will underpin a newly energised, modernised and formidable compliance model that will be more effective and efficient than current practice.

Our national minimum wage is the highest in the EU. Other protections and entitlements are provided for in legislation focused on equality, health and safety, working time, redundancy, maternity, parenting and caring. This is a vast body of work and certainly cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be characterised as reflective of a nation that does not protect and promote the rights of its workers, determine fair remuneration for a decent standard of living and uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work.

We are sometimes asked to react as if there were no social and employment protection framework in place in this State. This is clearly not the case as the impact of the body of legislation and the quality of our employment rights institutions refute any such assertion. The challenge in a rapidly growing economy is to ensure that there is adequate, timely and effective enforcement of compliance with the statutory provisions now in place.

The Carers Leave Act 2001 came into operation on 2 July 2001. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for an entitlement for employees to avail of up to 65 weeks unpaid leave from their employment to enable them to care personally for individuals who require full-time care and attention. This maximum entitlement will shortly be extended to 104 weeks. The Act fulfilled the Government commitment in budget 2000 and in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness that legislation would be introduced to give effect to a carer's benefit payment and a parallel right to carer's leave.

The Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 came into operation on 20 December 2001. The Act outlaws discrimination against part-time workers vis-à-vis comparable full-time workers on the ground of their part-time status. In line with the Government’s commitments in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the Act includes pay and pensions as part of the conditions of employment for part-time employees. These provisions also apply to posted workers. Thus, a person, irrespective of nationality or place of residence, who works in the State under a contract of employment, has the same rights under Irish employment law as Irish employees.

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 came into operation on 14 July 2003. The Act provides for the improvement of the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination.

A number of statutory instruments relating to various areas of employment rights legislation have also been made over recent years. The Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings Regulations came into effect from 11 April 2003 and implemented the mandatory provisions of the relevant EU directive. The regulations are aimed at protecting the rights of employees arising from an employment contract in the event of a transfer of a business or part of a business, in which they are employed, which entails a change of employer. Complaints that an employer has contravened these regulations may, generally, be referred in the first instance to a rights commissioner and, on appeal, to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

A total of five statutory instruments under the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996, concerning employment rights of young persons, have been made over the lifetime of this and the previous Administration — in this context, young persons are 16 and 17 years old.

In addition, the Department facilitated the drawing up of a code of practice under the aforementioned Act concerning the employment of young persons in licensed premises. The main purpose of the code of practice is to set out for the guidance of employers and employees the duties and responsibilities, including statutory obligations, concerning the employment of young persons on general duties in licensed premises. The code of practice covers young people who are 16 and 17 years old, including all second level students, excluding bar apprentices in the licensed trade, who are employed at any time in licensed premises, be it for summer, other holidays or part-time work.

From 1997, the Government, together with the previous Administration, made a total of 18 statutory instruments under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 relating to maximum weekly working hours, minimum daily and weekly rest periods, rest intervals at work and public holiday entitlements of employees.

I will now deal with the area of redundancy payments. Notwithstanding the exceptional economic success of our economy at present, we are ever vulnerable to global pressures on manufacturing and services activities. Some companies can no longer survive in this environment and they continue to close. Other companies survive by means of market diversification, technology and downsizing. Our improved redundancy legislation, benefits and service go some way to alleviate the immediate impact.

Extensive work has gone into improving the service side of processing redundancy application and payments. The redundancy review group, consisting of representatives of the social partners and Government, produced a comprehensive report in July 2002 on how best to simplify the redundancy payments system. It proposed amending legislation and commissioning of a new e-government-based IT system.

The Redundancy Payments Act 2003 was enacted in May 2003 and represents the most radical change to the redundancy payments scheme since the original Redundancy Payments Act 1967 which started the scheme. The 2003 Act provided the legislative framework for the significantly enhanced level of statutory redundancy payments of two weeks' pay per year of service, plus a bonus week, agreed by the social partners and Government under Sustaining Progress. The old payment level had been restricted to half a week's pay for every year of service up to the age of 41 and a week's pay for every year over 41 years, together with a bonus week.

The 2003 Act also provided the legal basis for the new on-line redundancy payments IT system. Following agreement at the second phase of Sustaining Progress the enhanced payments level was further increased on 1 January 2005 by an upward revision of the ceiling on weekly pay for redundancy calculation purposes from €507.90 to €600.

The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform has published orders extending the periods of leave available under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 and the Adoptive Leave Act 1995. Both orders are effective from 1 March 2006. While these enactments fall outside the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it is no less indicative of the Government's positive attitude to the broad spectrum of employment rights issues, including the wider family friendly/work-life balance concerns which have been mentioned.

I wish to refer to the Department's employment rights-related functions that concern the International Labour Organisation. Since 1997, Ireland has continued to be represented at the annual international labour conference by a tripartite delegation, representing the Government, trade unions and employers. Ireland takes a vigorous stance on its membership of the ILO. In particular, as EU President, Ireland co-ordinated the EU's position on the various agenda items at the 92nd session of the ILO conference in June 2004.

During this period, Ireland continued to report annually, in accordance with the provisions of the ILO constitution, on the various ILO conventions ratified by Ireland since joining the ILO in 1923. Since 1997, a total of eight ILO conventions were ratified by Ireland. In 2005, Ireland was honoured to be elevated to the ILO's governing body for only the third time since 1923.

Ireland has continued to report regularly on how it implements the Council of Europe's 1961 social charter and revised social charter, and to answer questions at the governmental committee of the European social charter on its reports. A total of seven such reports on how we implement the European social charters were submitted since 1997. These are the subject of detailed discussions at meetings of the governmental committee of the European social charter, which meets three times per annum.

The enforcement of employment rights is too often characterised as a discrete function undertaken solely by the labour inspectorate. The reality is that there is a formidable corpus of legislation that provides for a range of obligations and entitlements both for employers and employees. The employment rights arena is populated by various bodies — for example, the Labour Court, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the rights commissioner service, to name just a few. Each is charged with the task of administering that considerable volume of employment law.

As always, there is scope for improvement but it is not a solution simply to appoint hundreds of labour inspectors. Additional labour inspectors have been appointed and since November 2005 there have been 31 officers serving in the position of labour inspector. This represents almost a doubling of the number of labour inspectors in recent years.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is still not enough.

Mr. Killeen

However, the real challenge for us in this dynamic workplace is to ensure that there is adequate, timely and effective enforcement of compliance with the statutory and other provisions already established. The Government gave recognition to this approach in Sustaining Progress. Arising from those commitments, it has completed reviews of the employment rights bodies, the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate and the joint labour committee system.

The Government has established the employment rights group, in which the social partners and the employment rights bodies participate, to oversee the development of proposals for Government for a simplified body of employment rights legislation. The group also guides and drives the implementation of Government's decisions on the role and functions of the employment rights bodies themselves so as to ensure user-friendly and simplified complaint, appeal and enforcement procedures are put in place. All cases are dealt with initially by rights commissioners and only on appeal by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

In accordance with the commitment in Sustaining Progress, the Government also completed a review of the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate. The review, which was not prescriptive, presented the arguments for and against an extensive range of issues impacting on the labour inspectorate. It was circulated to the social partners in January 2005.

Last September, having obtained the views of the social partners, the Government established the employment rights compliance group, ERCG, to follow up that earlier work. Considerable consensus was achieved regarding the following: a streamlining of access to redress through the existing employment rights bodies, thus enabling individuals with the information and facility to vindicate their employment rights and entitlements more easily; greater emphasis on proper record keeping together with increased transparency regarding pay and the associated information provided to employees on payslips; organisational improvements in the service provided by the employment rights compliance section of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, including the labour inspectorate and including a regionalised structure; and major investment in education and information dissemination on employment rights obligations and entitlements for both employers and employees.

In addition, the implications of a new employment rights compliance model involving a re-orientation of employment rights procedures away from the civil courts towards the rights commissioner service were teased out. The Government welcomes the good work completed by the employment rights compliance group and notes that the current social partnership talks are tasked with the objective of deciding the final shape of the future compliance model and the organisational restructuring that may be required as a consequence.

For about five years now, employment rights literature has been available in nine different languages distributed through the work permit system, through embassies in Ireland, through citizen information centres and through other outlets. This has been followed up by a pilot scheme, which is under way, whereby classes in basic employment rights are given to migrant workers in their own language. I commend the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on its initiative in this regard and I endorse greater support for the social partners and other key players for educational and promotional purposes. I anticipate development in this respect once the outcomes of current social partnership discussions have been concluded.

Many workers from overseas work in sectors which are covered by the joint labour committee system where their terms and conditions are negotiated and agreed by the social partners within the framework of the joint labour committee or JLC system. The resulting agreements become employment regulation orders once cleared by the Labour Court and are enforceable through the labour inspectorate or in certain respects directly with the employment rights bodies themselves. This is a robust approach which has worked well for many years. However, again as part of Sustaining Progress, the Government undertook a review of the JLC system by outside consultants. On completion of that exercise the Government entered into consultations with the social partners with a view to developing proposals to refine the system further. These proposals will feature in the current social partnership negotiations.

The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which came into effect on 1 September 2005, is major new legislation in the area of safety and health in the workplace. The primary focus of this Act is on the prevention of deaths and injuries in the workplace. Safety at work is paramount and it is most disquieting to see the fatality statistics over recent years. This Act is a serious wake-up call to employers who do not do enough to prevent accidents at their places of employment. Workers also have a duty not to endanger themselves or others and to be alert to dangerous situations.

This Act marks a new era in workplace health and safety. It sets out to shift the focus away from viewing health and safety as an add-on but to integrate it into a management system. It involves both workers and employers working together to achieve a safer and healthier work environment. The Health and Safety Authority or HSA is committed to engaging in a process of consultation with key players to make it user-friendly to employers and workers, especially those in small companies.

One of the innovations in the Act is the power to make regulations for the imposition of on-the-spot fines for breaches of the health and safety code. I have asked the board of the HSA to undertake consultations and to come back to me with recommendations on what are considered to be the appropriate areas for the levying of on-the-spot fines. The Act places duties on both employers and workers alike and I envisage that the on-the-spot fines will apply to both where a HSA inspector finds clear breaches of the health and safety code. The HSA is empowered under the Act to compile and publish a list of the names and addresses of businesses where a fine has been imposed by a court, a prohibition notice served by the HSA or where a court has made an interim or interlocutory order. This is an important step in the direction of the public's right to know.

There is also protection in the Act for employees against dismissal or penalisation for carrying out their duty in regard to safety matters. Where an employee is victimised or otherwise penalised for legitimate health and safety activities, the Act provides for redress. An employee is entitled to appeal to a rights commissioner for a determination. In the event of a further appeal, this can be heard by the Labour Court. Both the construction regulations and the general application regulations are in the final phase of preparation by the HSA.

I turn now to the issue of lifelong learning and training. Ireland can best foster social inclusion by promoting an environment where sustainable employment is available for all job seekers. Our job creation record over the lifetime of this Government has been the envy of our European partners and we now have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe. There are now nearly two million people working in our economy compared with 1,468,000 when we came into office in 1997, so more than 500,000 new jobs have been created.

Sustaining our employment, particularly in the increasingly knowledge-based environment in which we now compete, means that Ireland needs a workforce with higher level skills. Ireland is not alone in facing this requirement to upskill. Throughout the European Union, lifelong learning is important in the context of economic and social change, the rapid evolution of the knowledge society and demographic pressures resulting from an ageing population. The Lisbon Agenda aims to make the EU the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.

Ireland has a long tradition of training people for entry into the labour market and we are close to EU averages in investment levels in this area. The Government has increased resources allocated to training people for employment consistently over recent years. This year FÁS will invest almost €250 million in this area, up from €230 million in 2005. The Department of Education and Science is also increasing its investment in the area of further and adult education. This will rise to approximately €146 million in 2006, an increase of €8 million on 2005, and will provide for an expansion on existing services in the sector in the coming year.

Increased funds have in recent years been provided to a number of programmes to support the one step up initiative through the training of those in employment. These include FÁS training initiatives for the employed, which have benefited from substantial increases in investment since 2004 when annual allocation rose from €8 million to the current annual levels of €35.6 million. This funding allows FÁS expand its existing competency development programme. It is also funding strategic alliances with the private sector in a new programme that saw FÁS commit €19 million in 2005 to 15 projects. These projects attracted a further €6 million in private sector funding and will see nearly 19,000 trainees benefiting from training that will focus on three key categories: basic skills provision for low skilled employees, occupationally specific upskilling for staff in certain sectors and management and entrepreneurial development. FÁS will seek further proposals for investment under this initiative later this year.

Skillnets Services Limited also receives funds from the Department to manage a networking programme that involves about 100 companies. It addresses general training needs as well as those of specific economic sectors. The public budget for this training in 2005 was €7.5 million and when allied to matching funds provided by employers, total funding available was significantly more. This year this budget is being increased to €8.5 million and will increase to €10 million in the years up to 2010.

Skillnets also manages the ACCEL or accelerated in-company skills initiative on behalf of my Department. This has a public budget of €16 million over the next two years. To date, 25 companies successfully bid for €9 million in grants in the first call for proposals in 2005. These projects are starting up now and it is expected that 20,000 employees from more than 2,000 companies will benefit from this training. ACCEL has launched a second call for proposals in 2006. Enterprise Ireland is also providing in-company training and 20 projects have been funded under its auspices since 2004. A total of about €6 million has been provided and the programme will run into 2007.

In addition to the above initiatives, specific funding has been made available from the national training fund for dedicated training purposes. This includes support for the continuing professional development of engineers, for promotion and training in the information and communications technology sector and for developing the range of skills required to work to the greatest effect in the community and voluntary sector. In summary, there has never been such a concentration of public funds devoted to training and skills development and this Government can be proud of its achievements to date.

I now propose to move on to social partnership and I am sure this House will agree that no Government other than this and the previous one led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, has been more committed to the social partnership process. No other Government has been prepared to utilise social partnership to the maximum in seeking to advance the social and economic objectives to which we all aspire.

I want to show this House how the Government and the social partners can work together to propose, negotiate and develop practical and achievable improvements in the workplace as well as the attainment of a fair and inclusive society. These are challenges which the Government set itself in its programme for Government. The Government is proud of its achievements and can point to commitments delivered and progress made in the social partnership process. The process is accepted by most in this House and by many countries and commentators overseas as being a major contributor to the attainment of our societal goals. This is how it should be, as it is an inclusive process that gives a voice and role to many constituencies, none more so than unions and employers, together with the farming sector and the community and voluntary grouping.

The scene has been set, the negotiations are under way and, as the Taoiseach has already made clear, the Government will not be found wanting in contributing to the negotiations and to the attainment of an agreement. It is entirely appropriate that the social partners play an important role in the evolution and development of employment rights. It has been the practice of this Government that legislative proposals, the transposition of EU directives or reviews of legislation or processes are conducted against a background of consultation with the social partners. The development of employment and workplace entitlements always features in the social partnership discussions and agreements and has over recent times led to legislation, increased entitlements and additional resources towards enforcement.

As stated in our amendment, the Government is committed to the social partnership model as the most appropriate mechanism for advancing the interests of both employers and employees. I am confident the outcome will include a meaningful package in the area of employment rights standards, education, promotion, compliance and enforcement as well as a range of other priorities which will be identified and developed in a fashion that will embrace the demands and concerns of all parties.

Despite the magnificent performance of our economy and unprecedented levels of employment, the successful blending of labour and enterprise as manifested in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is questioned in the motion. It is irrefutable that our economy has been performing extremely well for the period of office of this and the immediately previous Administration. The image of our airports and seaports thronged with young people emigrating across the globe due to the lack of opportunity at home is a fading memory. Social partnership, underpinned by strong Government commitment and a genuine willingness by all concerned to identify the complementary and consensual areas between employers and employees, has in no small way contributed to that positive outcome and the success we experience today. That focus on complementary aspects is reflected in the ethos and functions of the Department, where enterprise and employment policies are seen as complementary and not in competition with each other.

In tracking the economic and labour force changes over the years since enterprise and employment were merged and with the addition of trade in 1997, it is clear the arrangement has worked very well. Unemployment rates are down from 1993 levels of 15.7% overall to 4.4% today, with long-term unemployment at just 1.4% compared to almost 9% in 1993. Over the same period the labour force grew by 43% from 1.4 million in 1993 to 2 million today.

Bringing together the interests of both employers and employees under one Minister is clearly in keeping with the partnership approach to decision and policy making and no clear argument has been advanced to date as to why this should be changed. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is structured in a way that recognises that enterprise and employment are not competing but complementary factors. Only by growing our competitiveness, increasing our trade performance and expanding enterprise performance can we produce sustainable high quality jobs. Similarly, only by ensuring we have a well trained and confident workforce that enjoys the protection of our health and safety and employment rights legislation can enterprise flourish.

Since 1993 when the Department was established in its current formation, jobs and real wages have grown at unprecedented rates, we have introduced the national minimum wage and seen a significant improvement in the legislative framework protecting workers. The welfare of workers, especially those most exposed to low incomes, has been transformed during this period. However, this has also helped sustain and been sustained by a parallel and unprecedented improvement in trade and enterprise performance, evidence that our pro-enterprise and pro-jobs policies have made a real difference. While the factors supporting this transformation are many and social partnership played its part, it is clear the current configuration of this Department is right for Ireland.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State's time concluded at 8.25 p.m.

Mr. Killeen

I would have liked to refer to the points made by Opposition speakers, many of which were constructive.

That is what one does, namely, work with people and get jobs done. The Deputy can see the progress being made in Tallaght, which is due to the fact that I am keeping in touch with the Government and trying to get decisions made in conjunction with other colleagues. We have all listened very carefully to the Minister of State's comments. People were very attentive when he delivered his speech because he made a fine statement and many good points. Hopefully, people will examine his comments and build on them.

I bring my life's experiences to my Dáil work. I was an emigrant after leaving school as I could not get a job in Dublin. I went abroad and later returned.

Mr. Morgan

It did the Deputy no harm.

Mr. O’Connor

I was made redundant twice and I know what a terrible experience it is.

Mr. Killeen

There is no fear of that happening now.

Mr. O’Connor

I was lucky to get employment.

Mr. P. Breen

I hope the Deputy's constituents do not make him redundant next time.

Mr. O’Connor

While I am not sure about everyone in the House, I am happy to accept the will of the people.

I cut my political teeth in the early 1980s, when Tallaght had the population of a city but the status of a village. We were waiting on many facilities and had a considerable need for jobs. The Get Tallaght Working group was set up by a number of us in 1984 and is relevant to this subject. For this reason I will not stand on the Fianna Fáil backbenches and state that I am happy with a situation in which workers are being jailed.

In my experiences in the community and going about my business in Tallaght, I fought to make the point that, as large projects came on stream, local labour should be recognised and local jobs created. A number of workers informed me that, while they lived in Tallaght, if the above ideal came about, they would lose their jobs in Dún Laoghaire, Finglas, Blanchardstown and elsewhere. However, my point was reasonable.

The Minister of State has taken the opportunity to clarify where the Government stands on social partnership. At times in the House there is criticism of social partnership but where would we be without it? I will not lay out the line about how much progress we have made, our tremendous economy or the jobs being created. It is positive that, in all our constituencies, people are working and young people have hope.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State's comments. In fairness to him, he addressed many of the points made by members of the Opposition. This debate will continue for some time and more points will be made tomorrow. I have no difficulty in supporting the Minister of State in making the case for workers' rights. Let us not create a situation in which unemployment becomes an issue again. Successive Governments have dealt with unemployment and job creation should continue to be a part of the national agenda. We can each make a case for our respective communities. I am never afraid to make a case for Dublin South-West and will continue to do so. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It was not a problem.

Mr. O’Connor

I should have mentioned Crumlin once.

Mr. P. Breen

I wish to share time with Deputy Perry. This Government's record on the protection of workers' rights is a disgrace. In the cases of Gama, Irish Ferries and immigration, it has failed to offer protection. It has allowed a bizarre level of hysteria about the services directive to permeate political discourse in this country without making any effort to dispel the myths that were circulating. Perhaps it did this to suggest Fine Gael and Labour were implacably opposed to each other's views. In the European Parliament the EPP, of which Fine Gael is a part, and the Party of European Socialists, to which the Labour Party is aligned, crafted an improved version of the directive and this is depressing news for those seeking to perpetuate that mischief.

This debate is framed by the European debate, exploitation of migrant workers, recent disturbing developments in Irish Ferries, the country's continuing deterioration in competitiveness and the declining manufacturing sector. Concerning the EU services directive, I am delighted the Single Market is finally being extended to this part of the economy. Fine Gael supports the directive for the following reasons. It will help boost economic growth and sustainable jobs.

Since 1993 the Internal Market has created almost €1 billion in prosperity and 2.5 million jobs. It can deliver much more if we can create a real Internal Market for services. It will make it easier for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises to provide services throughout the EU. This will increase cross-border competition in services markets, bringing down prices and improving quality and choice for consumers. It will remove pointless red tape by simplifying the authorisation and licensing regimes with which businesses must comply. Businesses will be able to complete any necessary formalities electronically and through one point of contact.

It will improve co-operation between national authorities in different member states to protect and inform consumers and to combat rogue operators or illegal work. It will help stop discrimination against consumers on grounds of nationality. For example, differing entry fees to museums or cultural events could not be imposed on tourists on the basis of their nationality. It will clarify the conditions under which patients are entitled to reimbursement for medical care obtained in other member states to ensure that they can benefit from a better choice of high quality treatment.

I am delighted at the resolution of the problem surrounding the country of origin principle. This would have allowed for the employment of non-national labour at the minimum wage rates and employment standards of the employer's country of origin. This would have endangered the livelihoods of national workers and would have been unfair to non-national workers who deserve the same minimum standards as everyone else.

We have seen the danger this poses when a similar situation unfolded at Irish Ferries. Fine Gael watched the unfolding events at Irish Ferries last year with a real sense of disgust and horror. The actions of the company were an example of the worst type of Dickensian exploitation seen in this country. Irish Ferries is an Irish company based in Ireland and should be subject to the laws of this country, including legislation that provides for a minimum wage, employee protection and health and safety. As a result of legal nonsense, it was almost allowed to get away with industrial murder.

The debate on Irish Ferries was never about immigration, globalisation or free market economics. I believe in an open market, a flexible employment atmosphere and the value of non-nationals coming to this country to work. That debate was about a greedy, grubby company intent on maximising profits that was not just seeking a cheaper labour force but a criminally cheap labour force. Ireland has established an industrial relations infrastructure that ensures workers from new countries are paid a decent wage and are not exploited. That legislation protected Irish workers from having their jobs replaced by new arrivals to our shores.

For no good reason, Irish Ferries believed it did not have to obey those laws. It ran roughshod over 40 years of industrial diplomacy that had helped create the Celtic Tiger from which all of us, including Irish Ferries, have benefited. The Government had no solution to this problem. It empathised, showed concern and ticked off but it did not govern. In an effort to be helpful my colleague Deputy Perry suggested approaching our colleagues in the European Union to outlaw the practice of reflagging throughout the EU. It is only by doing this can we rid the seas and this country of the cancer of exploitation that Irish Ferries was intent on spreading through the body politic.

The Irish people have repeatedly shown their support for the European Union. It is through the EU that we must approach this and ensure the activities of Irish Ferries are deemed illegal just as they have been deemed immoral by everyone in this country, with the exception of representatives of certain august bodies who should know better.

The management of Irish Ferries should have been loyal to the social partnership process. It should have been loyal to the people who helped it become the profitable company it is now. Can it count on the loyalty of Irish people, exporters, importers and tourists who have been so badly treated and inconvenienced throughout this whole sorry drama?

Fine Gael believes the country should be honest about the need for immigration, the benefits it can bring and the repercussions of not welcoming inward migration. Ireland must import the skills to ensure it remains a world class player. With performance fuelled by immigration, the economy has the potential to post cumulative growth of 45% between now and 2016 according to commentary from Goodbody Stockbrokers. Growth of this magnitude would see Ireland expanding at more than twice the rate of the average eurozone economy over the next decade. Goodbody stated that, for this trend to be achieved, inward migration will play a vitally important role. The Government must adopt an integrated, planned immigration policy. Today, immigration policy is shaped by political kite flying such as the recent news on a green card system, which might get a Minister through a news cycle but does not provide an alternative.

Let us be honest, establish the economic case for immigration, set a level and establish and enforce a sensible, compassionate immigration policy that will allow the engine of the economy to continue running. I note that the Economic and Social Research Institute has predicted growth of 5.7% this year and a similar figure next year and has called for immigrants to be given the fullest opportunity to contribute to the economy. It stated that research showed immigrants in Ireland were not using their qualifications to their full potential, with many holding jobs for which they were over-qualified. As a modern European nation, there exists an economic imperative as well as a moral duty for us to accept immigrants. The ESRI paints a picture of educated teachers, doctors and lawyers arriving here in an effort to improve their lot and failing to have their expertise recognised and valued.

We should never lose sight of the fact that to have social justice, fair wages and fair work practices, we also need jobs. We must improve our competitiveness to ensure those jobs are created. Two years ago the Government promised to keep down personal and business taxes to strengthen and maintain the competitive position of the economy. In the following years it implemented 41 stealth tax rises which cost the average family €1,800 per year. The average tax contribution per household last year increased by €2,800. Between 2001 and 2002, Ireland overtook the UK and Sweden to become the third most expensive country in the EU for consumer goods and services. By 2003, Ireland was almost on a par with Finland as the most expensive country in the eurozone, with both countries significantly more expensive than the next group of eurozone countries. Dublin is the 21st most expensive city in the world, more expensive than Los Angeles, Paris, Miami, Singapore, Honolulu, Vienna, Helsinki and Abu Dhabi. It is the fourth most expensive capital in the EU, behind London, Paris and Copenhagen.

Ireland has dropped from fourth in 2000 to 26th this year in the world economic forum's global competitiveness report, owing mainly to the Government's failure to control prices. This has adversely hit the living standards of hard-pressed workers. The Government must shout "stop" and let anti-competitiveness die a death. Workers in the manufacturing sector are having an especially hard time. The loss of 180 jobs at GN Resound last month, including non-manufacturing jobs transferred to Denmark, was a serious blow to Cork. NEC announced the closure of its plant in Meath, with jobs being transferred to Malaysia. I extend my sympathies to all the workers affected as well as their families.

This is a worrying trend as manufacturing firms are reviewing operations in Ireland with a view to reducing costs by outsourcing to other jurisdictions. This process has been accelerated by the deterioration in our international competitiveness. Ireland has fallen from 4th to 26th in the global competitiveness tables. The most productive and efficient operations risk seeing their jobs transferred overseas. To date the Government has ignored the competitiveness challenge, in spite of repeated warnings from Fine Gael, the National Competitiveness Council and other agencies. The latest inflation figures confirmed that the Government remains one of the key factors in driving up costs, through a slew of stealth taxes on essential services.

The reality of outsourcing and the loss of jobs to cheaper overseas economies must he addressed. Fine Gael calls on the Government to implement a series of key measures to reverse the trend. These include appointing a single regulator to control costs and open up sheltered sectors of the economy; "business-proof" all legislation before it is passed into law; ensure adequate access to broadband throughout the country; and keep Government prices at or below inflation level.

Fine Gael cannot support this motion in its totality. Fine Gael is strongly supportive of good employment standards. We must ensure exploitation does not occur. We do not need a separate Department with responsibility for labour or mandatory trade union membership.

Mr. Perry

I thank Deputy Breen for sharing time. This is an important motion as it deals with sustainable employment and the issues mentioned by Deputy Breen, such as the high costs of maintaining jobs in light of recent job loses. Last week in Sligo, 91 jobs were lost at Saehan Media Ireland. Prior to that 67 jobs were lost at Kerry Foods, 120 were lost at Tractech a month ago and 500 jobs were lost at Hospira. The successful Donegal firm, Magee, closed last week with the loss of 60 jobs. While we have a successful economy, geared on growth within the economy, one must consider the cost to companies of maintaining employment here.

I am of the opinion that the key investment for any company is personnel. Any company which does not fully realise that does not operate its business efficiently. As Deputy Breen stated clearly, in considering our competitiveness within Europe we have lost sight of the customer when it comes to value for money. We all hear about large gross salaries. One must consider the amount of money taken out of the economy indirectly through PAYE, PRSI and, as we saw in the Irish Ferries case, reflagging. The derogation that existed for seafarers was mentioned previously. It is regrettable it was not in place prior to the job losses at Irish Ferries. If it had been in place the loss of €20 million which it would have meant for the company may have saved the possibility of alternative employment.

One must consider the growth in the economy. The issues this motion deals with, including statutory rates of pay with the minimum wage limitation, the hours' work to which the Minister of State alluded, health and safety provisions, statutory redundancy and carer, maternity and adoptive leave are all equally important in any company which invests in good staff. We should promote the growth of the services sector, including retail services, through the IT colleges. Regrettably, it is not emphasised in educational institutions. One must consider how the economy is being driven and the growth in tourism. Parents' perception of the tourism sector is of summer jobs and it is deemed to be only a "filler".

Lifelong learning is important in light of the job losses in many areas. People should have the opportunity to avail of lifelong learning and courses should be grant-aided. Working people should have an opportunity to upskill. The job losses in Sligo mean a great deal of upskilling must now take place there. Within certain companies, people have been given the opportunity to take part in upskilling programmes. It gives people several options and is good for personnel. We hear about job announcements. However, people who have worked in the same company for 20 years and who have lost their jobs will not necessarily get these new jobs.

I am critical of the lack of funding for small companies. The collective budget for the 26 enterprise boards throughout the State is approximately €25 million. In Sligo the budget is approximately €1 million. The definition of SME in Ireland is different from the European definition. The level of jobs and supports given to small companies is absolutely deplorable. Any company employing less than ten people does not receive any assistance. Companies in the services sector receive nothing. Creators of manufacturing jobs receive little and are referred to Enterprise Ireland. Foreign investment companies are referred to IDA Ireland.

It is regrettable that the small companies which are the backbone of this economy receive nothing. The people involved work a 40-hour weekend, not a 40 hour week. The proprietor takes all the risk and gains little of the profit. The definition of a small manufacturing company must be examined. To grow our economy, huge encouragement should be given to people establishing their own enterprises. Regrettably, few grants are given to small companies. I hope the Minister of State is listening to me. It is important that small companies are established in every county, such as Clare and Sligo.

I am sure the Minister of State will agree that the main emphasis is on foreign companies coming to Ireland. More support should be given to indigenous businesses in each county, which have done a business plan, a feasibility study and a comprehensive review of how the jobs created can be sustained. The longevity in business of a small company given that critical start is more sustainable than foreign companies which move to Malaysia or Mexico where the cost bases are considerably cheaper.

It is understandable that people examine the bottom line. Business is void of sentiment and these directors will take what they get here while they can get it. When the bottom line is questionable, they go to an economy where the conditions of employment are minimal, with no employment rights and where people will work for a fraction of the salary. To grow Ireland's economy, we must consider the small companies in every village in every town in every county.

The emphasis is on the large business parks. Enterprise Ireland will give a company ten reasons that it cannot give it money. IDA Ireland will give the same reasons, as will the enterprise boards. People decide not to go near these organisations because it is all about red tape, such as feasibility studies. Training sectors and colleges should emphasise the importance of self-starters in the services sector, hotels, the retail trade, the business community, the caring sector and nursing homes. From a small acorn the large oak grows. The Government has been anti-enterprise. While it supports the big guru coming in, when it comes to the creation of small companies, very little is given.

Deputy Breen clearly stated the Fine Gael position on this in an effective manner. I am fully supportive of many aspects of this motion. However, membership of a trade union should not be mandatory. It should be optional, and people have that option at present. I compliment Sinn Féin on this motion.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 21 Feb 2006

Labour Affairs: Motion.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 2006