Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the National Implementation Body’s intervention in the recent industrial relations dispute in Aer Lingus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30764/07]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Social Partnership.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the work to date of the National Implementation Body. [31973/07]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the proposed timetable for the forthcoming national pay negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35017/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35277/07]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the meetings he has scheduled in 2008 with the parties to the Towards 2016 agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35287/07]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the social partnership agreement Towards 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3530/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3531/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3534/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the social partners under the auspices of Towards 2016 will take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36120/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the proposed timetable for negotiation of a new national agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36121/07]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his views on the implications for the successful conclusion of proposed national pay talks of the recent report of the benchmarking group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1483/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.
The National Implementation Body, NIB, which has been in existence since the start of 2001, continues to meet as necessary to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions in Towards 2016. The NIB has met on a number of occasions recently to assist in the resolution of industrial disputes. Meetings of the NIB also provide opportunities for informal discussions on some of the broader issues relating to the social partnership process and the industrial relations climate generally.
With regard to Aer Lingus, Deputies will be aware of the extensive processes, both internally between the parties and with the assistance of the State's industrial relations machinery, which have taken place in respect of transforming the company to meet current and future challenges. Having considered the concerns expressed by the parties regarding industrial relations issues, the NIB proposed a process, detailed in its statement of 16 November last, which included an analysis on its behalf of various elements of the change agenda to be undertaken by the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, using the technical assistance, as necessary, provided by Grant Thornton so as to clarify the scope and value of a number of issues in dispute. The NIB invited the parties to engage meaningfully with each phase of the process and requested that they desist from taking any action which might hinder the effectiveness of the process.
Informed by the outcome of the intensive discussions facilitated by the LRC, the NIB met again the parties before Christmas to assess progress on the process agreed in mid-November. In its statement of 21 December 2007, the NIB noted that the negotiations on change facilitated by the LRC and those on arrangements at Shannon Airport had resulted in the identification by Aer Lingus management and SIPTU of savings equivalent to those being sought under the programme for continuous improvement, estimated to be in the order of €10 million.
The NIB also recommended further engagement on the flexibility and mobility agenda and the Shannon issue, and it made other specific recommendations regarding cabin crew, pilots, IAESA, the craft group, future recruitment and grading structures and Towards 2016 and other increases.
I am encouraged that the parties have been working towards resolving their difficulties. This joint problem-solving approach will pay dividends for the company, the employees, the travelling public and the development of Ireland's aviation sector. I join the NIB and the Labour Court in emphasising the importance for the company and employees alike of managing change through partnership, consultation and agreement, and the development of appropriate structures to promote such an approach and to facilitate the speedy resolution of disputes when they arise.
Deputies will be aware that the terms of the pay agreement for the private sector under Towards 2016 are due to expire shortly and accordingly I expect that the next plenary meeting to review the agreement this month will provide the basis for the initiation of formal talks, including those on a new pay round. As provided for under Towards 2016, implementation of the benchmarking report will be discussed by the public service employers and unions in the context of the arrangements on pay and conditions to be put in place on the expiry of the current public service pay agreement.
In parallel and as agreed under Towards 2016, the steering group, representing Government and each of the social partner pillars, continues to have overall responsibility for the management of the implementation of the Towards 2016 agreement as it applies to the wider non-pay issues. The most recent meeting of the steering group, the fifth meeting under Towards 2016, took place on 29 January 2008. The main agenda items for this meeting were a presentation by Professor Brendan Drumm of the Health Service Executive on integrated health services and a presentation by the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the older people life cycle stage.
Quarterly plenary meetings, chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, will continue during 2008 to review, monitor and report on overall progress in the implementation of the ten-year framework agreement. Regular progress reports are presented at these plenary meetings. The most recent progress report was published in November 2007 and is available in the Oireachtas Library. The next plenary meeting will take place in Dublin Castle on Friday, 15 February.
I ask the Taoiseach about the timetable for the proposed national pay talks. What is the Government's reaction to the recent benchmarking report, which delivered in some cases but did not deliver in a significant number of cases? Does the Taoiseach believe it creates a great difficulty for him and his Government as members accepted the recommendations of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector?
These recommendations awarded a range of between €36,000 and €38,000 in salary increases for Ministers. At the same time, frontline nurses who were encouraged to put their claim before the benchmarking body prior to the general election found the benchmarking report did not deliver bar in a number of nursing cases. This will make the pay talks extremely difficult given the downturn in the economy, the increase in the cost of living, rising unemployment and leaking confidence in Irish investment.
What is the Government's plan to arrest that lack of confidence and how is it proposed to enter the next round of pay talks?
It is hoped that we can move on the commencement of the talks shortly. The terms of the pay agreement for the private sector under Towards 2016 are due to expire shortly. I expect that the next plenary meeting which will review the agreement this month will provide the basis for the initiation of formal talks, including those related to the new pay round. The preliminary discussions will take place during February and it will be into March before we get into the serious discussions on the issue, but a lot of preparatory work hopefully will be done if we get agreement at the February talks to enter into them.
The Deputy has asked several questions on the benchmarking report. As provided for under Towards 2016, implementation of the benchmarking report will be discussed by the public service employers and unions in the context of the arrangements on pay and conditions to be put in place on the expiry of the new current public service pay agreement. We have learned from long experience that while these talks can be onerous in terms of time and effort, the benefits nationally of reaching agreement, in terms of certainty and industrial peace, far outweigh the burden on those who are involved in them. In preparing for the forthcoming negotiations, it is important that expectations are kept in line with the economic realities we face here and that are being faced throughout the organised world. National partnership agreements have served us well and I hope that what is a very good and tried and tested approach can once again be relied upon in helping to meet the emerging challenges that we face as a small open economy. We can see all over Europe the type of pay settlements that were reached, involving few if any increases at all, in country after country in the latter part of last year and the early part of this year.
Regarding the nurses, the first point is that every organisation was asked to put its case to the benchmarking process. All parts of the public sector and the wider public service were asked to do so. The national implementation body's intervention in the nurses' dispute was timely and produced comprehensive proposals to address the issues that were in dispute at that stage between the Irish Nurses Organisation, INO, the Psychiatric Nurses Association, PNA, and the Health Service Executive, HSE. These proposals were the result of many weeks of intense engagement with the parties within the social partnership process in the latter part of 2006 and the early months of 2007. The proposals were designed to be fair to nurses, to other parties in the social partnership agreements and to taxpayers through cost neutrality, and to ensuring that they involved no reduction in services for patients.
Nurses were not promised that benchmarking would deliver a pay increase — nobody was. Rather they were told that it was the proper way to have their claims addressed. The parties to the dispute made submissions to the benchmarking body and the body dealt very comprehensively with the nurses' claim, probably in more detail than any other case.
The report went into substantial depth and detail on the nurses' claim which it did not do for other groups in the public service. The benchmarking body examined 38 healthcare sector grades and recommended pay increases for ten of those, including the four senior nursing grades, the clinical nurse manager grade which got 6.8%, the assistant director of nursing in non-band 1 hospitals which got 10%, the director of nursing in band 3 hospitals, 10%, and the director of nursing in band 1 hospitals, 10%. These increases also applied to 17 other nursing grades, linked to those four grades, which include the directors and assistant directors of mental health nursing, the directors and assistant directors of public health nursing and the advanced nurse practitioners. A total of 1,800 people in senior nursing posts will benefit from pay increases of up to 10% at a full year cost of approximately €12 million arising from the benchmarking increase. While the nursing unions may feel that not every issue was helped, any fair examination would show that they achieved far more than other sectors. That is the reality of the position.
I answered a question on the pay review last week but it is important to note that the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector, the public service benchmarking bodies and the reports and recommendations have to be considered together.
That said, the benchmarking body reported five years ago whereas the review body carried out its last analysis in 2000. Consequently, the same period is not being covered. As another pay review body is not due to be convened until 2011, effectively this will have been the only review body for an entire decade, since its predecessor. This should be noted clearly and if the increases are larger, it is because they are for a far longer and more sustained period. It is also important to note that when making comparisons between comparable public and private sector jobs, the review body made an adjustment of 15% to allow for the advantageous pension rights of public sector workers.
I do not see the benchmarking report as being other than difficult. As I noted last week, Deputy Kenny's views the last time were highly critical. I refer to his point that far higher increases of 8.9% were paid last time. However, that was based on what was happening in the comparable private sector grades during the late 1990s and earlier this decade. This time, the examination and analysis of the equivalent grades did not show such an increase. The position differed at the top end of the private sector, which showed very large increases, albeit for an extremely small number of people. Such increases do not go through the organisations and this has been highlighted clearly in the report.
I did not want the Taoiseach to go back over the higher remuneration background. The question I asked pertained to the Taoiseach's point regarding the forthcoming pay negotiations, namely, that expectations should be in line with economic circumstances. Although the Government has accepted salary increases of between €36,000 and €38,000 for Cabinet members, front-line nurses who work in overcrowded accident and emergency departments and so on were not awarded anything in the benchmarking process. Will this not pose a difficulty for the Government? Moreover, other workers experience daily increases in economic pressure, financial stresses and the cost of living, such as a 50% increase in the price of milk, and so on. It will be highly difficult to keep expectations in line with economic circumstances when ordinary workers see the outcome of the higher remuneration recommendations being accepted by the Government. What is the Taoiseach's view on wage restraint? Does he have a view on the level at which it should be pitched? Does he consider that his opinions regarding expectations can be met?
I wish to ask a different question in respect of Aer Lingus. Most Members, to a greater or lesser extent, have an interest in the Irish language. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has made highly relevant announcements in this regard including proposals to send teachers to universities in America, site a university at Ballyferriter and so on, all of which are grand plans. However, the Government owns 23% of Aer Lingus on the people's behalf. Was it informed of an instruction given by Aer Lingus to all pilots and flight personnel to the effect that all announcements flying out of Belfast were to be made in English only?
I raised this question with the Minister last week, who replied he had no function in the matter. While Aer Lingus no longer is the national airline in that sense, the Government is a 23% shareholder. I fly to Brussels with Aer Lingus occasionally to attend meetings and inevitably short formal announcements are made such as, "Fáilte romhaibh chuig an mBruiséil" or whatever. The Taoiseach, quite appropriately, visited First Minister Paisley recently as issues arise in respect of cross-Border activities, Scots Gaelic, the Irish language, promotion of our different cultures and such matters. I find it extraordinary that Aer Lingus, the carrier of the shamrock throughout the world for many years, would issue an instruction to its flight personnel and pilots that all announcements are to be made in English only. Did Aer Lingus consult the Government on this matter?
On the first issue, that of the review body, I accept what Deputy Kenny said and I will not go back over it all again. For almost 40 years, the function of the body has been to advise the Government on the general levels of remuneration at the higher level so the Government, political officeholders, senior people in State bodies and agencies, local authorities, health boards, the Garda Síochána, the Defence Forces and the Judiciary would be dealt with independently of their own system. In every one of the reports down through the years, the increases have been implemented, but on a phased basis. In this case, we have made a change in that regard in that nothing will be paid in the first year and the remainder will be phased over a three-year period. This, in effect, means that by the time the process comes to its conclusion, it will have covered a 12-year period. I do not believe that is an unreasonable position.
The review body's examination was based on the lowest quartile and took into account comparable grades in the private sector. I agree with its focus on the lowest grades because if one focused on the top grades in the private sector, far bigger increases would have been recommended. There would be very few people in this category in the private sector but greater numbers in the public sector and therefore the review body was totally right to use the lower quartile.
It is seven full years since the last report was produced. It was originally intended that the period should be four years. One sees what happens when a Government extends the period for another three years; the increases look bigger. The review should at least coincide with the benchmarking process for the time being because the longer the period between reviews, the greater the increases recommended. Both the private and public sector unions understand the system and the position and that the two are related so I do not regard this issue as presenting a difficulty.
On Aer Lingus, Deputy Kenny knows that at all our meetings, including those of the North-South bodies and east-west bodies, those who are fluent in the Irish language use it. Even those of us who are not are using the cúpla focal. It is totally accepted by all the parties in the North. Some people of the Unionist tradition pride themselves, in respect of their Scottish language and Irish, that they are well able to use their "cúpla focal" and I admire them for that. Recently at the launch of the Cumann Lúthchleas Gael function, Minister Poots made an effort to speak Irish that impressed everybody. Why Aer Lingus would believe it is necessary to drop Irish, I do not know. We were not informed and I do not believe it is any great hardship to anybody. In any of the meetings I have had, I heard nobody objecting to the effect that Irish should be dropped. Maybe somebody I do not know about did so. I agree with Deputy Kenny that Aer Lingus is the national airline and its whole profile should be based around that. I do not believe the few sentences would harm anyone and I do not believe anybody would object to them.
Masla mór ar an dteanga.
This batch of questions covers the work of the National Implementation Body and the prospects for the next round of social partnership pay talks. Has the Taoiseach heard comments by a number of trade union leaders in recent days to the effect that there is no great point in their entering new talks on pay in circumstances where commitments made under the previous agreement, Towards 2016, have not yet been implemented by the Government? In particular, I draw attention to the complaint that the occupational pensions part of the directive on the transfer of undertakings has not yet been given effect in Irish law. A fund that was to be established to assist workers doing part-time night courses, including degree courses, has not been established and the Government has not yet published the employment rights compliance Bill, which was to have been published before the end of 2007.
On workers' rights and compliance therewith, a story in last week's newspapers claimed workers on the new Irish Ferries vessel are to be paid €4 per hour. The Taoiseach will recall the row there was when Irish Ferries sacked its entire Irish workforce to replace it with a workforce from outside the State. At the time we were told these workers would be paid the minimum wage. However, several newspapers reported last week that the workers on the new vessel, the Oscar Wilde, which will run between France and Ireland, are being paid €4 an hour, less than half the national minimum wage.
Can the Taoiseach confirm that this company is now paying its workers €4 an hour? Where does this leave the national minimum wage? Where does it leave the enforcement of employee rights? Where does it leave the work of the national implementation body and the partnership talks? It is scandalous that any workers in this country or associated with this country would be paid that appallingly low rate.
I am aware the trade unions have raised some issues that they are not happy with. I am aware of the fees issue and some other issues. I am also aware there are many issues that were not in the agreement but which have arisen subsequently and been implemented. That is the normal cut and thrust that goes on.
On the legislation, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, has been ready to go with the employment law compliance Bill for some considerable time. There are ongoing discussions with some of the unions because they want to move beyond what was agreed. This is what is holding back the legislation. That is not to say that the unions do not have some valid points to make. The Bill is on the A list. It is a very good Bill and the Minister continues to deal with the issue.
On the compliance issue, there is not just one Bill but three. We have reached some good understandings on good, protective legislation that is good for employment law. We have moved a long way even from the strong legislation already in place. The social partnership agreement has allowed us to achieve that. I would like to see that legislation enacted in the course of this year; there is no reason it should not be.
On the national minimum wage, I remember the Irish Ferries dispute well because I was involved in the discussions on that and the surrounding issues, such as the registering of companies, flags of convenience and so on. The national minimum wage is binding on Irish companies. It has been determined by the Labour Court and the requirements in this regard have been set out clearly by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Irish companies know that their employees, regardless of nationality, are entitled to the minimum wage. I do not know whether Irish Ferries is trying to operate as a non-Irish company because I am not familiar with the latest circumstances. The Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Kelleher, have been dealing with this issue. The Irish statute position is clear and well tested — the employees of Irish companies, regardless of nationality, should be paid the national minimum wage.
I appreciate what the Taoiseach said about the general run of this. However, this comes down to what happens when a clear case of worker exploitation comes to the surface. By any standards, €4 an hour, less than half the minimum wage, is just out of court. It is exploitation in anybody's language. In these circumstances, where the company running this service sacked its entire Irish workforce to replace it with lower paid workers, the agencies of the State must be particularly vigilant to ensure it does not get away with it. The story that this company is paying €4 per hour has been in the air for over a week. What steps have been taken to establish the facts or otherwise of it? I appreciate the Taoiseach does not know. An employment rights authority was supposed to be established under the Employment Law Compliance Bill, but that is not in place. The legislation governing agency workers has not been introduced and the Irish Government is one of three governments which have been blocking the agency workers directive for some time at European level.
We have a practical case here, on which I wish to focus. It is all very well to talk in general terms about workers rights, levels of pay, talks, partnership and so on, but this is a hard case where 500 workers on board this vessel are being paid €4 per hour. What is being done to investigate that and to enforce the national minimum wage in this case? Is there a loophole in our law which allows the company to get away with this?
Let me be very clear about this. The national minimum wage is a statutory one which is fixed in a process in the Labour Court and which takes account of this country's unique partnership arrangement. It has been the case since the Labour Act 1946 that employers, the Government, as an employer, and the unions adhere to that. It is the law and it is illegal for anyone to breach that. There is now a very large inspectorate with strong legislation being very much enforced over the past few years to examine, investigate and prosecute cases like that.
As I said, I am not familiar with the latest issues around Irish Ferries. Is it operating as an Irish company? Is it an Irish company? From where is it operating? These are the issues the inspectorate will examine. What happened the last time was that it was using flags of convenience and was not operating as an Irish company. We do not have enforcement powers in regard to a company that is not Irish. We do not regulate the Spanish fishing fleet that comes into the south west of Cork. We do not enforce the rights of workers who arrive at docks in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere. We do not have jurisdiction over that. We have jurisdiction over, and can enforce, the Irish minimum wage, which is the highest minimum wage in Europe and the only one which is untaxable in the OECD. We do not have powers of enforcement in regard to non-Irish companies. We do not have that jurisdiction. Our laws are very clear in this regard.
On agency workers, I answered questions on this matter recently but I will do so again. The Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Billy Kelleher, answered questions here on this issue in December and on a number of other occasions last year. Our system of industrial relations is a voluntary one between the social partners and is fixed by cases in the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission. We deal with this in a voluntary way. If we change the system under any directive, it does not suit that system. We should not be beholden because in one case it is good but in another it is bad and sign up to any directive which takes away the implementation of how we conduct industrial relations. That is a very important issue. We have held this position for 62 years. I would oppose that system and that is what the argument in the debate is about. It is not that anyone is against it but it is to ensure that the participation in and the voluntarist nature of Irish industrial relations, which was enunciated in 1946 and which has worked quite effectively since then in good days and bad days, is maintained and that a diktat from a directive does not take away the voluntarist nature of it. Deputy Gilmore knows this better than most people. That is the issue. I think sensible proposals will be worked out between our social partners in this, but it should be the social partners who are involved. We should not be taken by what others believe is a good broad code for Europe as it does not take account of how we operate our system. That is a fundamental point of negotiation and we should not move away from that.
The Taoiseach makes it sound as if Irish Ferries have nothing to do with this, as if the company was from Honolulu. Irish Ferries are as Irish as Croagh Patrick. The company may have found a way of distancing itself from Irish law, especially Irish employment law. However, it is the privatised successor of the old B&I ferry company. There have been stories in recent months about the ownership of the company and the Irish players who were involved in it. By any standards, €4 per hour is not an acceptable rate of pay. The company is in clear breach of the national minimum wage and the Taoiseach rightly stated that anybody paying under that wage is acting illegally. It would appear that this company has found a way to circumvent Irish employment law in order to pay these workers €4 per hour.
It is the responsibility of the Government to enact whatever legislation and regulation is required to ensure that this does not happen. Some of the legislation, which the trade unions complain has not been implemented, relates to this area. This includes the enforcement of employment regulations and employment law, as well as the protection of the rights of agency workers. The Taoiseach should ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to give a bit of urgency to this. I do not think that anybody in this country finds it acceptable that workers who are sailing ships in and out of this country every second day should be paid wages of this kind.
The Minister informs me that the National Employment Rights Authority is examining this issue. That body exists on an interim basis and it will have statutory effect with the enactment of the employment law compliance Bill. The issue is about jurisdiction and that matter is being examined. We do not have the information on what the company is paying its staff, but the issue is still about the statutory jurisdiction of the company and how it has structured itself. The National Employment Rights Authority has jurisdiction in this area and those matters are being investigated, as is the recent story.
Even with new legislation and with European legislation, we still cannot achieve certainty about some of these companies. This is also happening in other areas, where companies are using flags of convenience and registration from outside the EU. We have not had many of those companies here, but there are several in Europe that are engaging in this. The powers of the National Employment Rights Authority will be very strong in dealing with registered companies in our jurisdiction, but we are in a different legal battle when they operate outside the jurisdiction. I cannot confirm what rate these workers are being paid because it is not clear yet.
The Taoiseach has indicated that he has just been conferring with his Minister of State. Is the Taoiseach aware that only last Wednesday, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, attempted to defend the Government's position in the European Union in blocking the directive to regulate employment agencies? In his reply, he claimed it would not be in the industrial relations tradition of this country. Does the Taoiseach agree that the conduct of employment agencies in cutting wages, exploiting workers and forcing many other workers onto the dole queues is in the tradition only of William Martin Murphy?
When does the Taoiseach propose to take the relevant steps to tackle the gross abuses being carried out by employment agencies? Given that the conduct of these agencies is setting worker against worker and subverting the hard won rights and pay agreements, a succession of which the Taoiseach was party to, I have to ask whose side is he on? What national tradition was the Minister of State referring to in his reply to the parliamentary question only last Wednesday?
Is the Taoiseach aware that the intervention of the National Implementation Body in the Aer Lingus dispute was necessitated as a result of an attempt by management to impose wage cuts? Does he recall that when the whole debate in relation to the former national airline was taking place here, workers at Aer Lingus clearly indicated that a consequence of privatisation would be wage and job cuts and that voices in this House, then and still opposed to privatisation, cautioned that this was exactly what would materialise? Is the Taoiseach aware that SIPTU has referred the pay freeze imposed unilaterally by Aer Lingus on its employees to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court and has clearly stated that it is in breach of the national agreement, Towards 2016? What is the Taoiseach's reaction to the situation pertaining at Aer Lingus?
This is probably the first opportunity the Taoiseach has had since the resumption of the Dáil to state his position categorically. I ask him to make it absolutely clear to those in FÁS who have proposed a reduction in the minimum wage, as well as to all interested parties, including, first and foremost, workers and the trade union movement, that his Government will not countenance any such reduction and let FÁS take heed of that fact.
I will take the Deputy's questions in reverse order. We should all be proud of the fact that we have a very good national minimum wage in this county. We should be even more proud that this is the only country in the OECD to have a minimum wage that is high and keeps a large proportion of the workforce out of the tax net. No consideration whatever is being given to reducing the minimum wage.
On the Deputy's first point regarding the legal standing, the national employment rights authority is working on an interim basis. The employment law compliance Bill, when it is enacted, will establish a new employment rights authority. This is part of the legislation we are bringing forward in this area, which will compromise three Bills, to strengthen the law and make improvements that have been negotiated with the social partners as part of the national agreement.
On the employment agency regulation Bill, Deputy Ó Caoláin has correctly given the view of the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher. It is a view I expressed in reply to an earlier question. The purpose of the employment agency regulation Bill which is before the House is to regulate the employment agency sector by the establishment of a statutory code of practice setting out the standards for the sector and the establishment of a monetary agency committee. Representatives of the social partners, the employment agency sector and Departments will oversee adherence to a statutory code of practice. That is the intention. There has been a protracted consultation process, as the Minister said last week. The Ministers involved are considering certain proposals that have recently been submitted by the Department in the context of finalising the revised draft heads of the Bill. Parliamentary advice has been received from the Attorney General's office in regard to the extent of licensing of employment agencies, having regard to Article 40 of EU law and related matters. Hopefully, the Bill will be enacted during the course of the year.
The point I made earlier is that we have flexibilities and the voluntarist nature of industrial relations between employers and trade unions enables them to agree these issues in consultations. That gives us considerable benefits and flexibilities in gaining employment here, in attracting foreign direct investment and in helping indigenous Irish companies to do so. For us to slavishly follow what is a centralist approach, that is not in line with our industrial relations, is not the way to deal with these issues. It is better that we negotiate with our people who are involved in these issues. That gives us considerable advantages. Union leaders and the private sector understand that and it is the reason we manage to negotiate, whether in the craft industry, the manufacturing industry or the international services industries, and win. Quite frankly, from the time I was Minister for Labour, which is a long time ago, I have watched other countries try to get these binding agreements because they do not like what we have achieved in our voluntarist nature. I have seen this game for a quarter of a century. I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, and others to continue to be wise to the fact that we have something that is good and that wins us a lot of investment and we should not change that. It is an advantage for us. However, that is not to condone exploitation, or those who abuse it or try to find a way around it. That is not the issue. Of course, I agree totally with all of what the Deputy and everybody else has said on that issue but we should not slavishly sign up to things that remove the kind of flexibilities and initiatives we have in place. It is not what our workforce wants.
As I said here last week, in the modern world from the time a product is dreamed up in a company to the time it hits the market place is 40 weeks. The lifespan of most of the products in the wide ICT area is 18 months. We must have a flexible system that can operate on that basis. To do otherwise would be to throw away a considerable advantage that wins us all of these things. I have no time for abusers or users or people who try to exploit others, whether Irish citizens or those who work here, and we will do anything we can in the law. That somebody comes up with a centralised view, does not mean we should throw away what we have carefully nurtured in this country since the labour Act of the 1940s.