Vol. 687 No. 3
36 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will honour the commitment to allow employers to offset against tax, a redundancy scheme refund, that has not been paid by her; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27557/09]
At the Tánaiste's instigation, the Department engaged with the Revenue Commissioners to facilitate businesses experiencing particular difficulties in meeting tax payment obligations because of a delay in receiving rebate repayments from the redundancy payments section of the Department. Where agreement is forthcoming with the employer and, subject to satisfactory evidence being provided of the repayment due and its quantum, Revenue will be accommodating in deferring for a reasonable period collection or enforcement action that would otherwise ensue in the event of delayed payment of tax.
Since putting this administrative arrangement in place, my Department has received a significant number of requests from companies indicating consent to payment of the redundancy rebate they would otherwise be entitled to in favour of the Revenue Commissioners, where an outstanding tax liability exists. Revenue has agreed to consider these on a case-by-case basis.
This is broadly the same as Deputy English's question so I will not detain the House. Has consideration been given to allowing an offset against employer's PRSI and VAT payments where that is relevant, in addition to what is being done?
We are working with Revenue on that matter. There has been significant interest in this but the scheme has been operating for only two months. Thanks to the Minister's good intervention several hundred people have availed of the scheme in that period.
I raised this last April and advocated that the Department contact the Revenue to set up this scheme. Can letters of comfort be provided not just for the Revenue but also for a business to say that the money, whether €6,000 or €8,000, is due? Small companies could show that to the banks in order to release another few euro.
I am sure that the Revenue Commissioners will consider that and we will suggest that if such communication is vitally needed to keep a business going it should show that flexibility.
37 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment when it is intended to publish the industrial relations Bill which is required to provide for the continued operation of the joint labour committee and the registered employment agreement system, which was promised under the review of Towards 2016; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27440/09]
In the context of the Review and Transitional Agreement 2008-2009, the Government and the social partners agreed to the implementation of a series of measures, including the introduction of legislation, to strengthen the existing system for the making of both employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements and to provide for their continued effective operation. The Bill to give effect to this commitment will be published as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister of State. This is important because it fulfils a commitment made under the 2016 agreement. It is important that the measures are aimed at modernising and streamlining the joint labour committee systems, including the rationalisation of the number of the committees involved and the appointment of professional chairpersons with experience. Does the Minister of State consider that bringing forward the Bill would give an impetus to the resolution of the current dispute which we will debate later today?
We urge all parties involved in the present dispute to use the industrial relations machinery available to them and engage with the Labour Relations Commission because this is having a profound impact on the economy, as well as the immediate issue. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the joint labour committees and the employment regulation orders. There was a commitment to streamline them but the hotel and catering sector and consequently the electrical contractors launched legal challenges to them. The High Court found the law to be defective. The commitment remains and we will publish the Bill quite soon but I doubt whether the Bill, published or unpublished, would have any impact on the present dispute. I urge those involved to engage with the industrial relations machinery available to them.
I am not sure what "streamlined" means in this context.
We wish to amalgamate them in order to have fewer of them.
We do not need legislation for that. A number of them, including the catering one, have been amalgamated already. The issue which may require legislation is the fact that the courts may determine that employment regulation orders, EROs, are not legal because they have the sanction of the Labour Court and not ministerial sanction. I understand that one of the actions that may be dealt with in the Bill is that if this court case goes in a certain way, all EROs would fall as they would never have had legal weight. This Bill would require the Minister, rather than just the Labour Court, to sign off on all EROs. Legislation on those grounds would seem reasonable.
We also need to go further. Does the Tánaiste agree that there must be more far-reaching reform of the way joint labour committees, JLCs, and employment regulation orders work? With regard to the role of representative bodies, should there not be legislative definition of whether a body is representative of most employees? On many of these, they are not entirely representative, and there must be a clearer legal definition of the role of the chairperson. It is the case that with joint labour committees and EROs, the chairperson's casting vote determines the outcome. Unlike what we have with the electricians, it is not an agreement, and employment regulation orders are imposed by a committee. Often, they are not agreements at all and they are not claimed to be such.
There are two issues at stake; first and foremost there was a commitment in Towards 2016 that there would be a streamlining of the JLCs. As there are too many of them, we wanted to streamline them in order to have strong representation. There is also the issue of the independence of a chairperson.
Since then there have been challenges to the way we make the orders and it is required in the legislation that we would have the cover of the Oireachtas through ministerial order rather than us delegating too many functions from this House to the Labour Court. That was the issue challenged in the courts. I am sure people would not object to the streamlining of JLCs but in the actual detail——
What about the other two issues?
What issues?
There is the use of a chairman's vote to determine outcome and the question of whether members of the committee are actually representative of their industry.
We will examine the issue of the independence of the chair but ultimately there is representation from both sides. Very often it is split exactly in half and the independent chair has the casting vote.
Who chooses the representatives?
Is the Deputy suggesting that one side should have a majority? That would not work either. It is important to get the balance right.
There should be agreement on it.
There are difficulties with the current strike and there is an element of that in this issue. We would like to see the JLC system strengthened and broadly representative. The issue of the independent chair can be considered but the two fundamental issues are the legislation to strengthen the JLC system and the streamlining of the JLCs themselves.
38 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has made a submission in regard to the review of the national minimum wage currently being carried out by the Labour Court; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27427/09]
In November 2008, ICTU requested the Labour Court to review the national minimum wage and to make a recommendation to me concerning its adjustment. The court is required under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 to consult with representatives of employers and employees in the private sector and the public sector of the economy. In this regard, I understand that the court invited submissions from IBEC, ICTU and the Department of Finance. The Labour Court also held discussions with these parties and I understand that the matter is still under consideration by the court.
Given my responsibilities under the Act with regard to the consideration of any eventual Labour Court recommendation on the minimum wage, it would not be appropriate for me to make a submission on the matter to the court and I have not done so.
The Department of Finance has made a submission so the Government has a position on it. The Labour Party does not think there is any justification for decreasing the minimum wage or cutting in any way the basic levels of social welfare, so we may as well start from that premise. The arguments for increasing it can be discussed with regard to current economic circumstances.
Many of those people in receipt of minimum wage or at the basic level of social welfare have the highest propensity to spend in the economy. The propensity of these people to save is minimal because they do not have such resources, so if we cut their available resources further, it will have a further deflationary effect on the economy. It is important to note this, and I do so as somebody who must pay the minimum wage.
Has there been any indication of how far the Labour Court has progressed in its assessment of the position? Is it correct that once it has made recommendations to the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, he will have three months to consider them? Is it the position that the minimum level of wage, on which ICTU and IBEC have adopted different stances, has not been reported on by the Labour Court, despite it being there for a considerable period? Is that an indication of difficulties? That is neither here nor there. Does the Government intend to resolve the issue within the context of the new round of social partnership talks rather than wait for the Labour Court to deal with it?
The Labour Court would be very cognisant of ongoing discussions within the social partnership process and on that basis, I expect that the Labour Court would not be making a recommendation to the Minister of State. I have heard both sides of the argument. I had the opportunity to meet Commissioner Spidla and he indicated that the labour relations issues we have — the minimum wage, the EROs and JLCs — are such that we will not have an imposition of further legislation from the European Union on the basis of our own domestic policy. That is unlike a number of other member states, where the European Union is giving direction on issues that must be addressed.
The issue of the national minimum wage is causing difficulty, particularly in some of the very vulnerable sectors, but at the same time we must give assurances to people who are vulnerable in these sectors that they have an entitlement. We must balance both of these factors. Until such a time as we have seen a finality in the social partnership process, I am in anticipation of a decision from the Labour Court.
It is important to reiterate the Taoiseach's comments in the House last week in that we have seen the unit labour costs in Ireland reduced by 7%, which will address our competitiveness.
Like with many issues, real information on this is rarely shared in the House. That has much to do with the way democracy has declined in this country under the past 12 years of a Fianna Fáil-led Government. There is a draft document on The Irish Times website outlining the proposals submitted by the Government to the social partners with regard to pay in the private sector. The Government’s draft document indicates the review of the minimum wage being carried out by the Labour Court should now be suspended. Is that document authentic and is it the Government’s position with regard to the negotiations with social partners that it should be agreed that the Labour Court review of the minimum wage would be suspended?
I have much more to be doing than reading The Irish Times, and from what I can see, the Deputy spends 99.9% of his time on the Internet and the computer. I do not have the time to read The Irish Times and what it has to say.
It is my responsibility not to make any public pronouncement on the basis that we must adjudicate within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. As we all know, the views of the Department of Finance relate only to that Department and I cannot give any public comment on the issue. I do not want to find myself in a position where I could be brought before the House having expressed a public opinion which, per se, is not a recommendation from the court.
I have indicated that while the partnership process is ongoing and as there has not been final deliberation on this issue, I will not expect a recommendation from the Labour Court until it comes to fruition. It is my expectation that the maturity I have seen, regardless of what has happened this week, on both sides would reflect the economic difficulties we are currently experiencing. We must await the outcome of the matter.
Is the Tánaiste aware of a growing chorus on the part of exceptionally well-paid individuals in respect of a reduction in the minimum wage? Whatever about articles on website of The Irish Times, etc., will the Tánaiste indicate her view on the minimum wage and whether it should be either reduced or increased?
I am precluded from expressing a view on the matter. However, it is important to say that there is an opinion among many companies which are struggling that the level at which national minimum wage is set is causing them difficulties. It is not necessarily that people are in receipt of the national minimum wage but these companies are of the view what is over and above that wage is causing those difficulties. We introduced the national minimum wage in the first instance in order to provide protection to people, particularly those working for vulnerable companies, who might not have had the capacity or capability to express their own views. On this occasion, the jury is out.
Does the Tánaiste accept the point made by Deputy Penrose?
39 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her attention has been drawn to the announcement of the loss of 160 jobs at a company (details supplied) in County Carlow; the discussions she has had with the industrial development agencies with a view to securing replacement jobs; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27451/09]
IDA Ireland has worked with the Braun Oral B management team to seek replacement projects for the Carlow operation. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and IDA Ireland have had meetings at corporate level with Proctor & Gamble in the United States to explore opportunities for Ireland.
The decision to exit certain product lines was taken following the steady decline in consumer demand for gas-powered hair care appliances in recent years. A sourcing study was initiated to examine all potential options for Carlow. Regrettably, the decision of the study is that in order to keep the business viable, the company will transfer the remaining product lines from Carlow to the Braun Oral B manufacturing site at Newbridge, with the closure of the Carlow site by mid-2010. This is disappointing for Carlow. However, a decision was made to keep the business in Ireland and Braun Oral B will be able to secure future employment for approximately 100 of the Carlow employees at the Newbridge site.
IDA Ireland's strategy for County Carlow within the south-east region is to progress the development of a knowledge economy in order that it, and particularly the county town of Carlow, can compete both nationally and internationally for foreign direct investment. Specifically, this includes the provision of world-class property solutions with supporting infrastructure and working with local development partner agencies in County Carlow to advance critical supporting infrastructure, both hard and soft, which will contribute to a sustainable business environment for the long term. IDA Ireland is also actively engaged with the existing client base in County Carlow to encourage its transition to continually higher-value activities to promote further investment in Ireland.
Carlow has traditionally been a centre of manufacturing, with a strong engineering tradition in both the indigenous and overseas sectors. For companies in the engineering and consumer products sectors, the business environment has become more challenging in recent years. With much of the investment globally in these sectors now going to low-cost destinations such as eastern Europe and China, the task of moving up the value chain becomes increasingly urgent and relevant.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In marketing Carlow for new foreign direct investment, IDA Ireland is focused on attracting overseas companies in the life sciences, services and knowledge based industries including advanced manufacturing.
To assist in the retention and creation of jobs, the Government, through the enterprise development agencies, the county enterprise boards and other interested parties, adopts a co-ordinated approach in marketing and promoting inward investment and enterprise development. In addition, all the agencies work together to make people aware of the supports available to assist in finding new employment or to start their own businesses.
I am pleased that, in this instance, not all of the jobs involved will be lost. I appreciate the fact that the chief executive of the relevant company telephoned me to outline the difficulties it is experiencing. It is a welcome development that approximately 100 of the Carlow employees will be retained at the Newbridge site.
I accept that we are living in extremely difficult times. However, there have been major job losses in Carlow and Athy. Employment in the industrial sector in south Kildare and Carlow has been badly hit, at companies such as Braun, Lapple, the Irish Sugar Company and a number of others in Athy. I understand that problems exist. However, I request that consideration be given, in the context of the overall picture, to the area to which I refer.
When I was employed by Braun, the workforce there numbered some 1,400. Now, however, the doors of what is a magnificent facility are to be closed. In addition, Lapple and the Irish Sugar Company were also been closed. Carlow is now a major unemployment blackspot. Some ten companies have also moved their operations out of Athy. The State agencies must consider what action to take in respect of this area and I ask the Minister of State to provide a commitment that they will do so.
I would be delighted to give such a commitment. I wish to reassure the Deputy that IDA Ireland has a commitment to Carlow. It is important to note that earlier this year Merck, Sharp & Dohme announced an investment of €20 million and 160 additional jobs. In addition, the US-based company, Unum, also announced the creation of jobs in Carlow. There is a real commitment on the part of the agencies to co-ordinate their efforts in order to ensure that Carlow will not become an unemployment blackspot in industrial terms.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
