I tabled a question for priority on the wage agreement, Sustaining Progress, and the progress on the current round of talks. I was rather amazed to hear it was ruled out of order because the Minister had answered questions previously on the matter. I was looking for a progress report on the national pay talks.
Priority Questions.
Queries about the validity of a question should be made to the Ceann Comhairle's office.
Perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might bring it to the office's attention.
Unfortunately, the Deputy did not submit a substitute question.
I did not expect I would need one when a question was answered previously on the same matter.
I suggest the Deputy contact the Ceann Comhairle's office.
I will get another way.
Decentralisation Programme.
Phil Hogan
Question:1 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will report on the decentralisation of his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11389/06]
The Department is required to move 250 posts to Carlow under the Government's decentralisation programme. In addition, four of the agencies under the aegis of the Department are due to decentralise as follows: FÁS is to move 383 posts to Birr, County Offaly, Enterprise Ireland is to move 292 posts to Shannon, the Health and Safety Authority is to move 110 posts to Thomastown and the National Standards Authority of Ireland is to move 132 posts to Arklow.
The number of Department posts in business units decentralising to Carlow, as at 20 March, is 276. Having regard to the Department of Finance agreed staff protocols, the Department has approached all general service staff who expressed a first preference before 7 September 2004, that is, priority applications, for relocation to Carlow through the central application facility and there are currently 169 priority first preference applications for Carlow, with good interest across all grades.
I am confident that in the next two weeks, when officials in my Department analyse the so-called "two to ten" priority applicants, that is, those who before the 7 September 2004 deadline identified Carlow as their second or subsequent choice, there will be a further significant increase in applications for Carlow. Should there be a deficit of staff in a grade or grades following the "two to ten" trawl, my Department will then assess the post-September 2004 applications, in line with Department of Finance policy.
My Department continues to assign Carlow-bound applicants to decentralising posts with 91 such staff currently in place and we expect to have all decentralising posts filled in sufficient time to ensure staff are adequately trained in advance of the move to Carlow.
On the property side of the Department's move, the Office of Public Works has completed the purchase of a site in Carlow town centre. The next steps in the process will include the OPW finalising the public sector benchmark exercise and issuing a call for expressions of interest for the design, build, finance and maintain procurement option selected for this project. The OPW expects construction to begin early in 2007 and the construction phase may take up to 24 months.
In order to accommodate staff who wish to move earlier than the projected new building completion date, officials of my Department, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the OPW, as well as decentralising staff and business units, are actively exploring the option of an earlier move to Carlow, subject to securing high quality temporary accommodation. This latter option could allow movement of staff to Carlow during the first half of next year.
The Department continues to provide advice and support to each of the four agencies in progressing their decentralisation programmes and there is a dedicated agency decentralisation committee to drive the process forward. In addition, I am satisfied that each agency is fully engaged in the process and taking all of the relevant steps to advance its decentralisation plans.
In outlining the current agency position on decentralisation, it must be remembered that CAF data is based on priority first preference applications. As with the Department, agencies will seek details of second to tenth priority applications over coming weeks and will then look at post-September 2004 applications to fill any gaps remaining.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The FÁS head office relocation, involving approximately 400 staff, to Birr, County Offaly, has a target date of Easter 2009 for the move. The negotiations for the purchase of a site in Birr are at an advanced stage.
In addition to the 67 or so first preference CAF applications from across the civil and public service, to date 71 FÁS staff have signalled their agreement to transfer to Birr. However, the inclusion of a relocation clause in recruitment and promotion contracts is being opposed by SIPTU, which represents a majority of the staff in head office. This was the subject of a Labour Court hearing, which recommended that the matter be referred for discussions to the appropriate central body. SIPTU balloted its members on this issue and has secured a mandate for industrial action. The Department is, with FÁS, engaging with the Department of Finance to see how the issue can be addressed.
With regard to Enterprise Ireland, the most recent CAF figures show that a total of 52 people have signalled their interest in moving to Shannon at this stage. The most immediate implementation step for Enterprise Ireland is to provide for a new headquarters building, designed to meet the business needs of the organisation. Enterprise Ireland, working closely with the Office of Public Works, has identified but not yet acquired a preferred site in Shannon.
The position with regard to the Health and Safety Authority, with 110 posts moving to Thomastown, is that to date a total of 62 people have expressed an interest in transferring to Thomastown. The authority has been advised by the OPW that as the site procurement is in the final stages, the current time-line for availability for occupancy is mid-2008.
The authority has now secured an office in Kilkenny city which will act as an interim base for 21 staff who are in the process of recruitment for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals, REACH, strategy as well as some serving staff who wish to move in advance of the Thomastown premises being available. The authority has informed me that it hopes to have this office fit for occupancy by May of this year. All staff who move in the interim to Kilkenny city will transfer to Thomastown when the premises there are completed.
With regard to the National Standards Authority of Ireland, a total 132 staff are to be relocated to Arklow. The latest available CAF figures show the total number of first preference priority applications received from within the agency is 11. When those from across the civil and public service are added the total is 130. However, a significant grade mismatch is evident within these numbers. NSAI is working closely with OPW in identifying and securing suitable office accommodation in the Arklow area and the NSAI anticipates a target date of April 2009 as the completion date of its decentralisation programme.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and acknowledge the progress that has been made in decentralisation to Carlow. I hope the transfer of the full complement of 312 posts promised will be able to be achieved in the construction phase and accommodated through that phase.
On the movement of FÁS to Birr, notice of strike action has been served. Recently, there was a ballot of people indicating they did not want to go to Birr and there was a low level of interest in any case. In his response will the Minister of State outline how he will reconcile this lack of interest as well the industrial relations problems that the movement of FÁS to Birr will create, not only for FÁS but perhaps for other agencies through a knock-on effect?
The FÁS head office relocation, involving approximately 400 staff, to Birr, County Offaly, has a target date of Easter 2009. The negotiations for the purchase of a site in Birr are at an advanced stage.
In addition to the 67 or so first preference CAF applications from across the civil and public service, to date 71 FÁS staff have signalled their agreement to transfer to Birr. However, as Deputy Hogan mentioned, the inclusion of a relocation clause in recruitment and promotion contracts is being opposed by SIPTU, which represents a majority of the staff in head office. This was the subject of a Labour Court hearing, which recommended that the matter be referred for discussions to the appropriate central body. SIPTU balloted its members on this issue and has secured a mandate for industrial action, if they wish to go that far. The Department is, with FÁS, engaging with the Department of Finance to see how the matter can be addressed.
The Health and Safety Authority is coming to Thomastown in my constituency. There is a difficulty with the site, in terms of the planning process. There is a low level of interest in this case and I wonder how the Government will achieve the promised relocation of 110 posts to Thomastown in the second phase of the decentralisation process.
One of the issues the Minister of State might take on board is broadband access. There is no planning being carried out to include access to broadband and the Internet for Thomastown in the light of this decision to decentralise the Health and Safety Authority there. Perhaps the Minister of State might take that on board in the context of the move.
I have good news for Deputy Hogan. In the case of Thomastown, as he will be aware, there are 110 posts moving to Thomastown. To date, 62 people have expressed an interest in transferring to Thomastown. The authority has been advised by OPW that as the site procurement is in the final stages, the current time-line for availability for occupancy is mid 2008.
Between now and then, the authority has informed me that it hopes to have an office fit for occupancy by May of this year. All staff who move in the interim to Kilkenny city will transfer to Thomastown when the premises have been completed. That is good news for Kilkenny.
National Minimum Wage.
Kathleen Lynch
Question:2 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the investigation which is planned into the disclosure that Polish workers employed by a contractor at the ESB power station in Moneypoint were being paid well below the national minimum wage; the sanctions or penalties available against companies in such situations; the measures which have been taken by his Department to date to ensure full compliance with all labour standards by all contractors, especially those working for State companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11499/06]
The labour inspectorate of the Department is responsible for monitoring certain employment conditions for all categories of workers in Ireland, including immigrant workers. The inspectorate operates without any differentiation with regard to worker nationality as statutory employment rights and protections apply to immigrant workers in exactly the same manner as they do to other workers.
The labour inspectorate contacted the principal parties on this issue on Tuesday, 13 March and subsequently met with senior representatives of the ESB and its agents, and these contacts have been ongoing since.
In the meantime, inspectors have commenced inquiries with the contractor concerned in this case and have visited both the head office and the site in Moneypoint. Those inquiries are continuing and a further visit is planned. The inspectorate is examining documentation already obtained from the contractor, who has been fully co-operating with the investigation. Additional documentation has been sought and the contractor has undertaken to provide this material without delay. The investigation is continuing.
It should be noted also that in many cases current employment rights legislation has provisions whereby workers who believe they have been denied their entitlements, or otherwise unfairly treated, can, as an alternative to dealing with the labour inspectorate, take the matter before a commissioner in the rights commissioner service of the Labour Relations Commission.
Furthermore, the Deputy may wish to note that there are plans, albeit only in the early stages of preparation, for a major investment in a programme of information dissemination on obligations and entitlements arising under current employment rights legislation. The programme will be targeted at both employers and employees and will focus on particular audiences such as those engaged in sectors now generally populated by immigrant workers.
Section 37 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 states that a person guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty, other than under this section, is provided shall be liable (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 —€1,904 — or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both the fine and the imprisonment, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 —€12,697 — or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to both the fine and the imprisonment.
With regard to the issue of compliance with labour standards the remit of the labour inspectorate is to pursue compliance with the statutory entitlements provided for in employment rights legislation. The inspectorate has no role in the implementation of rates of pay or conditions of employment that would generally be referred to as industry norms. In the pursuit of its remit the inspectorate would engage in targeted campaigns, announced and unannounced inspection calls and the follow-up of specific complaints.
The current talks on a new national partnership arrangement include a focus on the applicability of employment rights entitlements in the context of public procurement.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. He supplied figures on the rate of inspection on 7 February. In 2002, there were 8,323 inspections and 25 prosecutions; in 2003, there were 7,168 inspections and 20 prosecutions; and, in 2004, there were 5,160 inspections and 14 prosecutions. The reason given for the lower number in 2004 was the EU Presidency. Last year, 5,699 inspections were carried out, 55% of the number carried out in 2002. What happened?
The Minister of State stated in April 2005 that 11 additional labour inspectors would be appointed bringing the total number to 31. Following the Gama fiasco, only four of the additional inspectors had been appointed. Have all 11 been appointed at this stage? How long more must we wait before sufficient inspectors are appointed? We thought the Government would be sufficiently embarrassed by the Gama incident to appoint a reasonable cohort of inspectors to ensure a similar incident would not happen. However, the case of Polish workers at the ESB plant in Moneypoint, County Clare, came to light recently. That came about because ESB management discovered it and brought it to the Minister of State's attention and not as a result of a departmental inspection.
Fines of between €1,500 and €10,000 are provided for in legislation to penalise unscrupulous employers. It is estimated the 70 workers at the Moneypoint plant were underpaid by €817 per week before overtime. What is the incentive for employers to comply? If I am fined between €1,500 and €10,000 following conviction, I will still make a huge profit. When will legislation be introduced to ensure the main contractor does not walk away Scot-free from a contract because he has subcontracted the work, given that he can say it was not his problem because he asked the subcontractor to comply?
How are foreign nationals who move to Ireland to work informed about their rights and rates of pay?
I assure the Deputy that 31 labour inspectors have been appointed. Issues arose regarding their recruitment and training and it took three separate recruitment campaigns to achieve the full complement. This is a complex area and the inspectors cannot operate unless they know the rules.
The number of inspections is interesting. I am not sure whether the same method of calculation is used now compared with 2002. However, a number of inspections, including that referred to by the Deputy, involves considerable manpower over several weeks. It has not been brought to a successful conclusion from the perspective of many of the participants. It can be misleading to compare the numbers of inspections. I expect the number of inspectors will increase in the context of social partnership. The review of the mandate and resources of the labour inspectorate raises many issues, other than the staffing level, such as the measures that need to be taken to enable the inspectorate to carry out its duties and a statutory requirement on employers. I take the Deputy's point regarding the need to review the penalties. That will happen in the context of the review of resources and mandate.
The Minister launched a campaign, Know Before You Go, last year aimed at workers in EU accession states. It advises people before they travel to Ireland to be aware of the challenges they will have to deal with following disturbing stories about non-nationals who came to Ireland expecting to be employed but who had difficulty sourcing employment when they arrived. In the majority of instances, a subcontractor was involved but the subcontractor was from the same country as the workers and they were paid less than the minimum wage.
How are the foreign workers informed about their rights?
The Know Before You Go campaign was run in the accession states. We received a great deal of co-operation from the various embassies and we have tried to ensure the information is available in those countries. It is expensive to engage in a public information campaign and, therefore, additional resources will be required.
The Department's website provides information in various languages but it was so incorrect that it was withdrawn last week and it is still not available. The website gave the incorrect information in every language, except English. Even the Irish version was incorrect. How does the Minister of State expect people to obtain the correct information if the Department is giving out incorrect information? The website still has not been updated.
It was assumed in error that the information had been cleared in all languages.
James Breen
Question:3 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the measures he is taking to stop the exploitation of 70 Polish workers employed by a company (details supplied) working at the ESB power plant in Moneypoint, County Clare, who are being paid €5.20 per hour when the minimum wage payable is €7.65 per hour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11391/06]
The labour inspectorate contacted the principal parties on this issue on Tuesday, 13 March, and, subsequently, met senior representatives of the ESB and their agents and these contacts have been ongoing since. In the meantime, labour inspectors have commenced inquiries with the contractor concerned in this case and have visited both the head office and the site in Moneypoint. Those inquiries are continuing and a further visit is planned. The inspectorate is examining documentation obtained from the contractor, who has fully co-operated with the investigation. Additional documentation has been sought and the contractor has undertaken to provide this material without delay.
The inspectorate is aware that the ESB, its main contractor for the project and the subcontractor are working to identify the details of any underpayments that may have occurred and it is understood these will be rectified. A further audit on behalf of the ESB is to take place at month end to ensure all matters have been corrected. The labour inspectorate will, however, pursue its own checks independently of that process.
How many labour inspectors are employed per county? What are their powers of inspection? When they visit a company, do they inspects its books and wage sheets? Has anyone been brought before the courts as a result of the under-payment of workers at Gama or as a result of what happened at Moneypoint? Has anyone been prosecuted? Recently, a small business in Lisdoonvarna was prosecuted but multinationals can do as they please and get away it. Will Gama officials or representatives of the company in Moneypoint be taken to court?
A total of 31 inspectors are in place and arrangements are made to enable them to visit workplaces throughout the State. With regard to their mandate, a number of difficulties have arisen about what must be provided in wage slips. These are some of the issues that must be addressed under the new mandate that will, undoubtedly, be provided for the labour inspectorate.
With regard to Gama, the matter has been in the courts on at least two occasions. We await a Supreme Court determination on the most recent High Court determination. The number of prosecutions was approximately 25 last year. The initial mandate of the inspectorate is to seek redress for workers who have lost out because of exploitation by their employers. I understand this has been done successfully for the majority of the workers in the case of Gama. Subsequently the inspectors examine whether it is possible to pursue a case in the courts, something they have done successfully on many occasions.
One of the recommendations of the report on the mandate of the inspectorate is that it would be more appropriate if the cases were taken to one of the employment rights bodies — the Labour Court or the Employment Appeals Tribunal — rather than the civil courts, because of the standard of proof, the speciality involved and the level of documentation required in them. This is something that will be examined in the context of the new mandate.
Do the inspectors have the power to inspect the wage slips? What provision will be put in place to stop victimisation of workers who come forward to complain and will the Department protect them?
The labour inspectors have the power to examine wage slips. One of the difficulties is that the level of information required to be provided on the wage slips is not of a standard that is useful in terms of pursuing a successful prosecution or of establishing whether the appropriate rates for the employment have been paid. There is a requirement to retain records and wage slips but, unfortunately, their format has not been sufficiently outlined in the regulation or the legislation.
Deputy James Breen raised the important issue of victimisation. Recent legislation introduced in this area included a section to ensure that people who bring information to the attention of the labour inspectorate or anybody in authority are protected. In the event we introduce additional legislation, I will try to ensure it contains that provision.
Labour Inspectorate.
Eamon Ryan
Question:4 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in view of recent revelations of abuse by subcontractors, the measures he is taking to ensure that the official net payment documented by employers corresponds to the actual payment received by employees; and his views on whether the existing system of documentation is sufficiently detailed and transparent to act as both a deterrent to and indication of abuse. [11552/06]
In accordance with its remit under employment rights legislation the labour inspectorate is empowered to examine particular employer records. In this connection, inspectors can examine copies of statements of pay, payslips, and reconcile these with the payroll records. In addition, inspectors can examine the working time records an employer is obliged to maintain. The preparation and production of false records is an offence.
In this connection, however, the Deputy is advised that the Department in its discussion document, Report on the Mandate and Resourcing of the Labour Inspectorate, recommended a streamlining of the record keeping requirements to tie in with the statements of pay. In addition, the report called for a significant revamping of the statement of pay so that there will be absolute transparency in the rate of pay per hour, the hours worked, the relevant calculation in respect of all deductions made and the eventual remuneration paid. The report of the employment rights compliance group, which informs the current partnership talks, indicated that there was a consensus between the social partners on progressing this proposal.
The nub of the problem is that a payslip can say one thing while the reality may be different. What, specifically, will the Minister of State do to amend this? Is there a legal difficulty in terms of access to bank account details which are the only real way to verify the actual payment made? How does the Minister of State intend to overcome the difficulty created where an employer makes deductions for accommodation or other expenses related to the work?
It is clear we all agree there is a problem because the employment rights group and the partnership process are focusing attention on this issue. What specific solutions has the Minister of State for the problem? If we take the example of the situation at Moneypoint, the ESB was unable to ascertain what was going on, despite the fact it had audits. It was not the arrival of the labour inspectorate that started the review process. The company and the main contractor had attempted to ascertain what was going on but were unable to do so because of the difficulty in getting accurate information.
This is a central issue for the partnership talks and in ensuring that migration and the arrival of accession workers here do not distort the labour market in an unfair way. What can the Minister of State do to ensure we have the powers to know who is paid what and whether fair deductions take place?
The Deputy is right that this is an important issue that must be addressed urgently. The issue features strongly in the current partnership negotiations and in the two reviews already completed by the Department. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 states that an employer shall give or cause to be given to an employee a statement in writing specifying clearly the gross amount of the wages payable to the employee and the nature and amount of any deduction therefrom. It further states that the employer shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary to ensure that both the matter to which the statement relates and the statement are treated confidentially by the employer and his agents and by any other employees. This is fine as far as it goes, but clearly one would need important additional information such as the number of hours worked and the rate per hour if one were to pursue cases successfully.
To be fair, in the case of Moneypoint the auditors for the ESB discovered the underpayments and raised the matter with the ESB which then pursued the issue. First it informed the relevant union, the TEEU, and had a memorandum of agreement with the subcontractor to deal with and resolve the matter. This process was at an advanced stage before the matter came to the notice of the Department's inspectorate. I would prefer the issue had been brought to the notice of the inspectorate earlier. It might well have happened that it did not come to the inspectorate's notice at all, which would have been unhelpful.
Arising from the points made by Deputy Eamon Ryan, there are issues with regard to how other State agencies interact with the labour inspectorate and the Department. For example, information available to the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Social and Family Affairs could be of major importance in terms of determining how to proceed with particular cases. The new legislation will include provision for an interchange of information among these agencies.
The Deputy raised the matter of deductions. Specified deductions are provided for under the legislation. Some employers say that in view of the high cost of accommodation, the deductions are particularly low. Be that as it may, there are standard maximum deductions in place.
The Minister mentioned new legislation. Does that refer to amendments to the 1991 Act? How or when does the Minister of State intend introducing legislation? Are there constitutional or other legal difficulties around the area of exchange of information between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department or labour inspectorate in forming an accurate assessment of real pay? Is that a simple process or does it introduce further difficulties?
The case involving Moneypoint concerns one of the largest contracts in the country. However, even in the smallest contract of employment it is very difficult to ascertain the real rate of pay unless we have access to bank account details. Is there not a concern, especially with our permit system, that the power of the employer to hold the permit in small localised employment situations is excessive? This power would probably dissuade an employee from disclosing that net pay was much lower than the declared pay on the wage slip. Do we not need to look wider and further in terms of the implications of the recent discovery of these false pay rates? Should we not amend our migration and permit system to ensure we have full transparency and do not allow situations evolve where a gross pay rate is a multiple of the real pay rate?
I will take the last point first. When the new legislation is passed the permit will be held by the employee, but it will be held on foot of an offer of a particular job. This will ensure a more level playing field for the employee. In the majority of cases, except for Gama, the employees involved in cases did not need work permits because they are EEA nationals.
Ultimately, the more successful we are in finding illegalities and cases where workers are being mistreated, the better placed we will be to deal with the issue. Rogue employers are gradually coming to the view that, through one means or another they will be found out and not just accidentally by the labour inspectorate, regardless of its staff numbers. The fact that so many people are now attuned to this happening will ensure that gradually more and more unscrupulous employers are found out.
I am not in a position to give a judgment on the constitutional issues. There could well be a problem with regard to the examination of bank accounts, for example. Traditionally, there was a view regarding constitutional bars that was considerably less liberal than the current view. I am not aware that any of the recommendations in the report on the mandate and resources of the inspectorate would require action that would be likely to run foul of constitutional issues. If I become aware that this is the case, I will revert to the Deputy.
What legislative changes does the Minister of State intend to make? Does he plan to introduce new legislation or amend the existing law?
That has not yet been decided.