Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the biennial conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 4 July 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19708/07]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Social Partnership.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received a letter from the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions seeking significant increases in mortgage interest relief to offset the continuing high level of inflation; his response to the letter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19887/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the ICTU conference in July 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25354/07]
Phil Hogan
Question:4 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Taoiseach the role his Department will take in the inclusion of a third sustainability pillar in the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22737/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting with the social partners under the auspices of Towards 2016 is due to be held; if an agenda has been agreed for the next meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23450/07]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the inclusion of a third sustainability pillar in the social partnership system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23841/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his ongoing contacts with the parties to the Towards 2016 agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25357/07]
Leo Varadkar
Question:8 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Taoiseach if he will support the application by the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association to be included in social partnership in view of the fact that small businesses are not properly represented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25671/07]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the national reform programme under the Lisbon Agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28240/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, together.
Since the inaugural plenary meeting on 15 February 2007, several meetings have taken place with the social partners in relation to the implementation of Towards 2016. I attended and addressed the ICTU biennial conference on 4 July at which I emphasised the basis for confidence in Ireland's economic outlook while, at the same time, warning against complacency.
Regarding the basis for confidence, I referred in particular to the ESRI's report on the social impact of our economic development. It concluded, among other findings, that living standards have risen for almost everyone, the fall in unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment, has made a decisive impact on social exclusion, people are now more likely to work in a better job than their parents and levels of deprivation have significantly declined for all social groups.
These achievements, and others like them, are not accidental, they are the outcome of good government and sound policy choices taken by a variety of stakeholders in society, mediated in many cases through social partnership.
Regarding the need to guard against complacency, I drew attention in my speech to the globalised setting within which the economy operates. Interest rates, energy prices and competition from emerging economies provide warning signals that success cannot be taken for granted. Minimising inflationary impulses, in so far as we can, is especially important. There is acceptance on all sides of the social partnership framework that we cannot and must not go back to the wage-price inflationary spiral of the early 1980s.
Regarding the ongoing engagement with social partners on the implementation of Towards 2016, the most recent meeting of the steering group was held on 8 October. The agenda included a presentation on the housing commitments under Towards 2016, a presentation on progress for people with disabilities and proposals for the North-South consultative forum.
The meeting also considered the progress report on the national reform programme under the Lisbon Agenda which is being progressed within the overall Towards 2016 framework. The report was submitted to the European Commission and laid before the House in October.
The latest plenary meeting took place on 8 November 2007 at Farmleigh House. The Government was represented by me, the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Agenda items included a pre-budget presentation from the Department of Finance. The third progress report under Towards 2016 was also circulated at the meeting and has been made available on my Department's website. As is the normal practice, all papers and copies of the progress report have been laid before the Oireachtas.
The steering group will continue to have overall responsibility for managing the implementation of the agreement as it applies to the wider non-pay issues. Quarterly plenary meetings of the social partner pillars will continue, as has been the practice over recent years. The programme for Government commits that "arrangements for representation of environmental issues in Social Partnership will be considered in the course of the review of Towards 2016 which will take place in 2008." Any change to the structure of social partnership must be carefully considered and the Government has previously identified clear and specific criteria against which applications to join the social partnership process are considered. These include that organisations requesting social partner status be national and representative in nature; that they have the capacity to meet the demands and obligations that arise as part of this participation; and that they will add to the capacity of the social partnership process to address issues effectively. In addition, any organisations would be required to formally endorse the Towards 2016 agreement.
In line with this commitment in the programme for Government, the issue will be considered further in the review of Towards 2016 in 2008 and related commitments to enhance the role of Comhar and establish a climate change commission. In respect of the application by the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association to be included in social partnership, the Government fully recognises the central importance of the small business sector to Ireland's economy. It is deeply committed to sustaining its support for enterprise through a competitive regulatory environment, prudent fiscal policy, as well as the comprehensive range of State supports provided by organisations in the field, such as the City and County Enterprise Boards, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and FÁS. The Small Firms Association represents small businesses in social partnership. Participation in the pay negotiations will continue to be confined to organisations with an established role in pay and industrial relations matters and will not be extended beyond the current participation.
Regarding correspondence received from the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on the question of inflation and mortgage interest relief, I wrote to ICTU on 14 September 2007 reaffirming the Government's resolve to tackle the root causes of inflation, in so far as it is within our capacity to do so. The General Secretary raised the question of increasing the ceiling on mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers and those who bought a house in the past seven years. In response I confirmed that the commitments in the programme for Government in this respect are set within the context of the budget. The Tánaiste and Minister for Finance announced on 3 July 2007 his intention that budget 2008 will provide for a further increase in mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers of €10,000 for a single person and €20,000 for couples or widowed persons.
The Taoiseach has given a long reply. It is generally recognised that the social partnership has been beneficial for the country because it has dampened the need for strike action in many cases. The structure originally envisaged, however, is not able to cope with what we face now.
Chaos is being caused by the Dublin Bus strike in what is a growing city with an increasing population, where commuters are hard-pressed to get to work in our high pressure society. They need new cross-city and orbital bus routes and services. When the system fails to find agreement with its workforce causing chaos on the streets it significantly disrupts people's lives. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Dublin Bus dispute, leaving aside its minutiae, is the failure of a regulatory regime to provide for people's need for services given the physical and human expansion of this city? Leaving aside the minutiae of the dispute does the Taoiseach agree that we are faced with a symptom of a failed regulatory regime? Will the Taoiseach comment on that?
People who require transport services generally do not mind who provides them as long as they are cost efficient, safe, effective and get them to and from work without disruption. Does the Taoiseach agree that the liberalisation of transport in Dublin and across the country has failed in this regard? Deputy Mary O'Rourke, who was Minister in 2000, introduced proposals for the liberalisation of these routes that were abandoned just before the election. There is clearly a demand from many people for new services and this disruption has occurred because the virtual monopoly that is in situ has failed to find agreement in its workforce.
Is this matter the symptom of a failed regulatory regime? What does the Taoiseach propose regarding the continued liberalisation of the bus transport market? It takes three years for a private sector applicant to get a licence, given the chaos in the Department of Transport.
Deputy Kenny will be aware that the Taoiseach does not have responsibility for issues affecting line Ministers. The Taoiseach may answer in so far as the Deputy's questions relate to social partnership.
That is what my questions relate to.
On the regulatory situation, the Department of Transport has received union agreement in recent years on the issuing of additional licences, especially for new routes. We have not started issuing licences and creating competition on existing routes but there are many new services. The total liberalisation of the market, which would open it to competition, is under ongoing consideration but many problems exist in terms of getting agreement from those in the transport sector.
There is a progressive movement of new services and Dublin Bus and CIE have agreed to move to new areas of the city and implement cross city routes, which have gone well. In fairness to Dublin Bus, incidents of industrial action at the company have been rare in recent years and I cannot recall when the last serious, all-out dispute occurred. There have been sporadic disputes at various stations, such as the one taking place at the moment.
I see this dispute as neither regulatory in nature nor pertaining to social partnership. Conflicts of this type should not happen but occur from time to time. I deplore the hardship that has been inflicted on the travelling public as a result of this dispute at Dublin Bus. I recognise that genuine issues are involved in this matter but that is not the point. The issues have been through the conciliation process at the Labour Relations Commission and are subject to a Labour Court recommendation. The issues have been through all the relevant strands of the process and a clear decision has been made. We know that recommendations of this type from the Labour Court are not binding. Substituting old-fashioned conflict for sensible negotiation and agreement benefits neither the company nor its employees. On the contrary, in a world where customers expect other options, as Deputy Kenny said, disputes like this are self-defeating and all sides should recognise that.
I am sure that creative solutions can be found to this dispute, like any other dispute. In reply to Deputy Kenny's question, I urge the parties involved to use the highly effective industrial relations machinery that is available to resolve the matter. The issue has been through the conciliation process at the Labour Relations Commission and is the subject of a Labour Court recommendation. The parties involved should use these creative solutions to bring about a quick resolution and I hope that can be achieved as quickly as possible.
The broader question is how the management of Dublin Bus can harness demand to its own advantage, leaving aside the private sector companies that wish to enter the market. Dublin Bus should take a proactive approach in this. We saw what happened across the water where Margaret Thatcher's Government believed the way right of forcing the hand of the state municipal bus services was to privatise the routes. That has been in dramatic reverse for the past five years, however, because the private sector was only interested in the lucrative routes at lucrative times. It was not interested in providing a service for 17 or 18 hours a day. This is something to which I have never been attracted, but we would force that upon ourselves if we did not have a sensible, progressive approach in terms of public bus services.
Will the Taoiseach discuss with the Minister for Transport the fact that the system that operates in that Department is simply crazy in terms of freeing up and giving an efficient response to applications for licences for new services, whether on existing routes or new ones? It takes an operator at least three years to get a licence and that is unacceptable. In the sprawling conurbations of this city, we should expect better. We have come a long way since the says when everybody had to go to Busáras to get a bus. Aircoach and others showed what can be done. However, the system that operates within the Department of Transport for issuing of licences is antiquated, inefficient and lacks the professionalism we expect in a modern country.
At the IBEC biennial presidential dinner on 26 October, the Taoiseach rightly said that arresting the trend of deterioration in our cost competitiveness in recent years would be key to future growth. He went on to say that a key consideration when we come to the next phase of pay negotiations under Towards 2016 would be its application to the public sector as much as the private sector. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is seated beside the Taoiseach, is only in the job a wet week and has already received an increase of €25,000. Good luck to the Minister.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that these awards are disproportionate to the extent that they are not comparable to any private sector area? The only people to whom Ministers can be compared are other Ministers, whether in Britain or another European country. It seems the body reviewing their pay looked to New Zealand and Australia for some reason. On my way to Brussels on Tuesday of last week, I noticed in The Economist a beautiful table showing our small country with its well paid Ministers. Here is our man, ahead of President George Bush, President Nicolas Sarkozy, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Deputy Kenny is not doing too badly himself.
The pay increases were disproportionate and based on a false premise. I ask the Taoiseach to comment on this. It will be the first time he has had an opportunity to do so in the House.
Some people are under pressure as a result of the news coming from the United States of further issues arising from the crisis surrounding sub-prime lending. The Taoiseach is telling everybody to tighten their belts at a time when members of the Cabinet have awarded themselves — accepted, it was an independent recommendation — pay increases ranging from €25,000 to €38,000. Does he think this was realistic in the current circumstances, given that when I was a member of Cabinet, our first decision was to refuse an increase on that basis?
The Taoiseach referred to FÁS in the context of social partnership. He knows well that FÁS is spending some €1 billion a year. One of the critical issues facing all of us is the necessity to upskill and retrain workers. This is a sizeable challenge. Does the Taoiseach consider that FÁS, under its current structure, has the capacity to meet this challenge given that there is an increasing concern about major manufacturing firms having to move abroad to lower cost regions? Is FÁS up to getting best value for €1 billion of taxpayers' money under its current structure?
There are three questions. With regard to the first, I will raise the issue of CIE with the Minister for Transport. I know discussions have been ongoing and the unions, management and the Department have made progress in liberalising the regime with regard to the relevant Act and having a more open way of giving licences for new routes and areas. They have not fully liberalised the market because it would create direct competition. I will never say they cannot make more progress as that could be done. The former Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, moved the negotiations a long way in trying to progress the issue. I will raise with the Minister the matter of the delays as there is no reason for a three-year delay.
I made a number of points outside the House on the issue of pay. The reality is that when anybody sees a very large increase that covers a long period, it creates difficulties, and I accept that point. The review body covered a period from 2000 but it should have been covered the period from 2000 to 2004. That was not done up to 2004 but from 2000 to the current period. It benchmarked this rise against what it believed were comparable grades in the private sector, which is what the review body does.
The impression constantly given is that the Government dreamed up these increases and implemented them itself. No matter how many times it is mentioned, that is the argument that is made. The review body has been there since 1969 and it periodically, originally on a four-year basis, carries out an assessment. It is an independent assessment, carried out by independent people, and is based on the principles of comparability that are an established feature of public pay determination. That is accepted by the social partners and most other people.
The assessment reflects trends in the private sector at senior levels. For example, it does not just take into account politicians in New Zealand or Australia but the trends across private sector grades. The reality is the private sector grades have moved up substantially over the past seven years. I listened to the views of ICTU and others on this issue when the Government was considering this proposal. It decided that we should not take the increase immediately but rather over a two-year period, which is what has happened a number of times. They have been phased in.
Deputy Kenny stated he was a member of a Government that pressed back these recommendations. I too have been a member of Governments that have done that but they have always taken the increase anyway. They either take a sliding scale or refer them but they have always been taken. There are a number of examples where there have been sliding scales but none of the proposals since 1969 has been rejected.
With regard to the comparisons with French President Sarkozy and others, the Deputy and I know all the arrangements these people have. The position is similar with much of their tax arrangements as they do not operate a system of transparency. They have all kinds of allowances and many ways of implementing them. I would like somebody to put all their arrangements up front. Not only do most of these people have permanent and weekend residences but they also have holiday residences. They have different rules where they are the beneficiaries of prolonged holidays, yachts and homes. We do not and should not have those regulations.
Most of the people mentioned by the Deputy would not pay for a cup of tea from one end of the year to the other because they have catering staff in their homes and can use jets for social as well as other occasions. They are not comparable conditions so we should not use them.
We could make an amendment.
It would be interesting to write an article comparing them.
Would the Deputy vote for it?
It would not be hard for a member of the media to write a glowing article about how poverty-stricken we are compared to other countries. I suppose I will have to wait for that.
The review body discounted the comparable salaries in the private sector by 15% to reflect the value of public service increases. I would gladly forego the increase to a future date, as happened before, if I believed it would make a whit of difference but it would probably be reported on page 99 of the newspaper.
The reality is that an independent body examined this and came up with an assessment that we decided to phase in over a period. The 2000 agreement is seven years old, so the increase is less than 3% per annum, with the 7.5% paid to us in the interim period in 2005. We have extended it by two years and it was agreed in the report that the next review would be in four years time. There is an 11 year period, therefore, with one increase. Admittedly it is a large increase, I am not arguing that, but it is an 11 year increase of just under 3% over the seven years. That is the position.
Deputy Finian McGrath is interested in it too. He wants to spend it on a yacht in Dún Laoghaire.
Clontarf actually.
On FÁS, I totally agree that the updating of skills will be a major part of the future of industry. That has been highlighted in many reports. In the national development plan a huge amount has been set aside for the upskilling of the existing workforce. We have a large workforce and this year has been a good year for manufacturing industry. Some other sectors may have been under pressure but it was a good year for manufacturing. Its future success depends on its ability to upskill quickly with good equipment.
I do not deal with FÁS on a daily basis, as I did in the past, but the organisation also has an input from sectors tied to third level education and should be able to do this. The skills evaluation report earlier this year highlighted some of what we must do in terms of training. FÁS is a large organisation with many employees and it should be up to doing it. The necessary efforts should be put in by FÁS because it has the budget, the network of offices and training centres and associations with industry and third level institutions.
Can the system be improved? The skills evaluation report showed that we must continually retrain, upskilling our people, if we are to stay at the cutting edge of new technology. FÁS is not the only organisation doing that, in-company training in the private sector is hugely important for those companies spending large amounts in the manufacturing, pharmaceutical and other sectors. That requires resources in the public sector. FÁS is a suitable public sector organisation for this but it should take full account of the skills evaluation report.
Yesterday morning and again this morning, 60,000 Dublin commuters could not get a bus to work. If this dispute in Dublin Bus escalates, more people will be unable to get a bus to work. On top of that there are reports that there may be strikes in Aer Lingus. The Taoiseach is responding to questions on social partnership, which is supposed to resolve those disputes and ensure we do not have industrial action over matters such as rosters, tea breaks and changes in work practices.
As a result of these disputes, are we witnessing the unravelling of the social partnership process? Has the Taoiseach contributed to such unravelling? I note the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance asked for wage restraint at Farmleigh last week. Does the Taoiseach not have a hard neck to ask the social partners for wage restraint in circumstances in which he is not prepared to exercise it himself? What does he have to say in respect of the comment made by Mr. David Begg, who is not known for overstatement, to the effect that the Taoiseach's plea for wage restraint lacked credibility on foot of the ministerial pay increases? Is it not the case that the industrial disputes that are beginning to emerge and which resemble an echo from the past are, to some extent, an indicator of a worsening industrial relations climate to which the Taoiseach has contributed personally?
As Deputy Gilmore is aware, that is not the case. Social partnership has been tremendously successful in avoiding unnecessary disputes but has not eliminated them. As I noted earlier, while I deplore the hardship that has been inflicted on the travelling public as a result of the dispute, I recognise that legitimate issues are involved. It is not for me to call an industrial dispute. This particular dispute has existed for many months and has nothing to do with any topical issue that has arisen in the past few weeks. It has been at conciliation at the Labour Relations Commission for many months. It went through that process and was subsequently the subject of a full Labour Court recommendation, which sided with the company and its management. Thereafter, there were ongoing discussions.
However, stating what the Labour Court does will not resolve any dispute. As I noted earlier, its recommendations are not binding. The Deputy was correct in one respect, namely, this constitutes the substitution of old-fashioned conflict for what should be sensible negotiations and agreement. The company does not benefit from this and I believe that creative solutions should be found as in any other dispute. I urge the parties to use the highly effective industrial relations machinery available to resolve this issue. Many people working within this machinery are familiar with Dublin Bus and have the capacity to deal with this issue, which has persisted for some time.
In fairness to the company in this case, it went through the process. I am usually critical of those who do not go through the machinery of the State, which we support through social partnership. With the exception of the Labour Relations Commission, this machinery preceded social partnership. The Labour Court existed before social partnership and people should abide by it. However, the dispute is now under way and people have ignored both the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. At least they should try to find creative solutions and to stop the hardship inflicted on the travelling public.
In respect of Aer Lingus, all Members are aware that many difficult change issues arise because of the nature of change within that sector. I recognise that discussion on this particular issue has been ongoing without resolution for the better part of six months. It is clear the threatened action will have an impact on customer behaviour. Bookings will be lost and confidence in the airline might well be affected, which is in the interests of neither the company nor its employees. The national implementation body, which acts under the remit of social partnership and Towards 2016, has met the company and the trade unions recently. It is considering whether it can make a useful recommendation to the parties regarding the difficult issues that have arisen. It is best to deal with and resolve them by agreement, rather than by risking lasting damage in an industrial dispute.
I do not accept Deputy Gilmore's suggestion that these difficulties reflect a wider problem in industrial relations. More than 2 million people work every day and nowadays there are only a handful of disputes. On the contrary, the very salience of the issues at Dublin Bus and Aer Lingus reflects instead the extent to which industrial peace and harmony, as well as the smooth management of change, has been the norm in the partnership process and there is no reason this pattern should not continue into the future. I do not believe there is any connection between any of these issues and what David Begg said. In fact, I was at the meeting and I read the speeches of both David Begg and Jack O'Connor. What both of them said, as I understand it, is that they accepted that the increases recommended by the review body were the result of an independent assessment based on the principles of comparability which are an established feature of public sector pay determination. The pay increases reflect trends in the private sector at senior levels. These private sector trends were the primary focus of the comments made by David Begg and Jack O'Connor. They made comments about the private sector right across the board. They were commenting not on the increases that were paid under the review body but on the increases across the private sector, and they clearly have a point.
The Taoiseach has referred a couple of times to comparisons with the private sector to justify the pay increase which he has given himself. These private sector comparisons are understandable when one is considering, for example, the salaries of chief executives of State companies, which may be comparable to private sector wages. Similarly, salaries among the Judiciary may be compared with earnings in the legal profession. Can the Taoiseach tell the House what private sector comparison he is relying on to justify his own pay increase? I am not aware that there are comparisons that can be made with the private sector in respect of political offices.
Since I asked specifically about the Dublin Bus dispute, can the Taoiseach tell us whether there are plans to ask the Labour Court, the Labour Relations Commission or any of the industrial relations bodies established under the social partnership arrangement to intervene in that dispute and bring about a settlement?
I do not think there are currently any plans to ask for intervention. However, I take the opportunity to say that I understand both the position of the company and of the union. The company put its case through the conciliation process and the Labour Court and received an adjudication. That said, I have listened to some senior bus workers who said they had particular understandings of how these routes would work and that the arrangements are not in line with these understandings. It is true that the Labour Court considered these understandings and rejected them, but that does not solve the dispute or improve the situation for the travelling public. While these matters are not binding, and the company can argue its position, both sides should look for creative solutions, as in any dispute. I urge both parties to use the highly effective industrial relations machinery that exists to try to find the basis of an agreement. I am not saying this will be easy, because the dispute has been going on for quite a long time, but I ask them to consider this.
On the matter of pay increases, I am not looking for any comparators as that is not the Government's job. It is seven years since a report such as this was issued by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. Of the 2,000 people covered in this report, politicians and office holders account for 20 or 30. In money terms, it is a very small percentage of the total. The review body has conducted a pay review after a seven-year gap — the previous review was in the summer of 2000 — and I note the report states that we should return to a four-year period between reviews.
The Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector was established way back in 1969, a year when there was much industrial unrest in one form or another. It is an independent entity. It has the primary function of advising the Government on these matters. The body's most recent report covered the Civil Service, local authorities, health boards, non-commercial State bodies, An Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces, hospital consultants, the Judiciary and the political officeholders. As the Deputy will be aware, the group did not base politicians on anyone — either those in the commercial semi-State bodies or, for that matter, industry. If one looks across private sector industry, people who would be considered to be in high management jobs, most of those at the top end — this is the point of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions — earn in excess of €1 million. Thankfully, the group members did not recommend such increases.
They looked at what they believed was a comparator, taking into account the 15% for pension provision. They looked at those rates, which are far less than what would be occurring in the private sector. If one looks at the range in the 30 or so companies in the private sector that are normally listed, there is no comparison between the review body's recommendations and those areas. I am not arguing for a second that there should be. The review covers a seven year period, five years extended by two. Some people said that this should cover the four year period until the next review. That would not have made much difference, one way or the other. It came to under 3% a year across the system. While the total amount is high, and my own increase of €38,000 is considered high, it was done on a basis that was independent and has been followed for 38 years.
Does the Taoiseach recall that two of the key issues addressed at the ICTU conference in July were the vital concerns of all Irish workers of trade union recognition and the ongoing disgraceful abuse of agency workers by employers?
When will the Government bring in legislation to make it mandatory on employers to recognise trade union activities within their respective work places? How does the Taoiseach respond to the situation whereby workers who are seeking to organise trade union activity in their respective work places face dismissal? How does he respond to the situation that employers in this State are making it a condition of employment that employees, or prospective employees, do not involve themselves in trade union activity? How can we square those situations with the fact that Government recognises the trade union sector as a critical and important part of the social partnership process? What does the Taoiseach intend to do about this? When does he intend to bring in legislation to ensure that all employers properly recognise and accord due recognition to trade unions and their respective representatives within all areas of employment?
On the second issue, the issue of agency workers, is the Taoiseach aware that this State, Britain and Hungary are the only three states within the European Union that have not legislated to ensure that agency workers are treated in exactly the same way as directly employed labour? Is he aware that we have a situation here where directly employed workers and agency engaged employees are working side by side doing exactly the same work but receiving two very different levels of pay for their work and, indeed, in regard to the latter category, those employed through the agencies are actually in poorer working conditions in real terms? What does the Taoiseach propose to do about this inequality that is perpetuated, sadly, by Irish employers and others who have established here over the years? Does the Taoiseach agree that it is patently in the interest of all workers, those who are directly employed and those who are agency engaged, that all workers are treated equally in terms of pay for work done and conditions of employment, and that the latter category applies to both Irish workers and non-national workers within the agency sector? Does he agree that it is hugely important in the interest of all and a fair return for labour that each are treated exactly the same?
Time will not allow me answer all of those questions. Generally, I support implementation of the employment rights and compliance agenda agreed under Towards 2016. The Deputy is aware that several issues arise in that regard. There was a Supreme Court decision earlier in the year which created difficulties for the trade unions. That matter is under discussion by trade unions, employers and us. Agency workers have become a big issue because of the way so many of the immigrants and those who are coming in under the European regulations are being employed. Detailed discussions are ongoing in regard to those issues.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked for an update regarding employment rights and the compliance agenda. We spent a long time working on Towards 2016. We spent five or six months working on a comprehensive package of measures dealing with employment rights and compliance. The Deputy touched on several of the points. They included the establishment of a new statutory body for employment rights compliance, a trebling of the number of labour inspectors, significant increases in penalties for non-compliance with employment law — that is for Irish workers or immigrant workers — measures to further protect agency workers, which is part of that package, and new legislation in regard to exceptional collective redundancy and dismissals in the context of industrial disputes.
That agreement also provided for the establishment of more user-friendly adjudication and redress mechanisms in the employment rights area. All of those are covered in the agreement. If I were to go through each of them, it would take a considerable amount of time. The Employment Law Compliance Bill will be published before the end of this year. It will provide among other things for the establishment on a statutory basis of the new employment rights authority, NERA. A director has been appointed and the management team is in place. More than 20 labour inspectors have been appointed. Ten inspectors with specific language skills are being recruited. The number of inspectors will be increased from the current level of 37 to 90 by the end of this year.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has also announced proposals in regard to the regionalisation of the labour inspectorate. We also enacted the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007 which covers a number of these points. Regarding the Revenue Commissioners, we have updated the powers of investigation of self-employment issues which is a large part of what the Deputy inquired about.
On the welfare side, we introduced very strict regulations and obligations in regard to PRSI. The sixth part was the Protection of Employment (Exceptional Collective Redundancies and Related Matters) Act which was signed in the summer of 2007. Progress on all these issues is ongoing. The agency issue is still under discussion as the union side feels significant abuses still operate in this area. I have discussed this with individual unions and with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We are committed to trying to make further progress in that area.