I welcome the Minister of State.
Adjournment Matters
Flood Relief Schemes Funding
I thank the Minister for coming into the House to take this Adjournment matter. It gives me no pleasure to raise this matter again and it is with a heavy heart and great regret that I do so. This is the third or fourth time I have raised this issue. One incident of flooding that affected the middle-eastern region, including Skibbereen, occurred when my party was in power. As the Minister of State present is probably aware and as the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, will be aware, on 24 and 25 October Skibbereen was subject to flooding for the fifth time since 2009. It is an appalling vista that businesses, homeowners and elderly people have to be on nearly full-time alert when the flood waters rise. There was heavy rain from 6 p.m. on 24 October until 2 a.m on 25 October and Skibbereen was flooded from two sides. It was severely flooded from the Baltimore Road side and later when all the waters from the River Ilen estuary eventually hit Skibbereen it was flooded from the other side of town over by Marsh Road, Townsend Street etc. It would be remiss of me if I did not pay a huge tribute to all those in the services - the council, the local people, the Civil Defence, the gardaí and so on - who came out that night and did significant work to try to protect areas. Their input is sometimes forgotten. I am a ratepayer in Skibbereen and thankfully my place was not flooded. However, the vigilance of all those people and the text alerts that were sent out gave people a chance to get into businesses at 2 a.m. and shift boxes, perishable material, raise shelves and so on. Were it not for that, much more serious damage would have occurred in Skibbereen.
I have raised an issue previously that has also impacted on other towns in the country that have been affected by flooding. Historically, there have been incidents of flooding in Fermoy, Mallow, Bandon and Clonakilty. Because of the extensive flooding that occurred in 2009 in Skibbereen the owners of the properties affected, be they commercial properties, pubs, shops, small businesses or those unfortunate people who live in flats or houses in low lying areas, can no longer get insurance. I am not sure how that serious issue can be resolved, but that is a matter for another day.
I would like to make a point, without being too leadránach on this issue, about what has happened since the scheme was initially announced in 2010. Since it was first announced that Skibbereen needed a flood relief scheme, that project has been delayed by a year for some reason. I am not suggesting that the Minister or the Department involved made a concerted effort to put this on the long finger. Each of the first three phases of the scheme has been affected by a delay of three or four months. We are trying to sort out phase 3 at the moment. At the time of the initial announcement, the intention was that the scheme would start by January 2014, which is a couple of months away. I now understand that the scheme is not likely to start until November 2014, which is 12 months away. Many people in Skibbereen are worried about what will happen in the intervening period. These concerns are shared by people in many towns, but I am referring specifically to Skibbereen because it was badly affected by flooding over the Hallowe'en weekend.
I hope the Minister of State will have some positive news for the people of Skibbereen. The proactive flood relief committee that is up and running in the town is doing excellent work. Those involved - I will not mention any names - are very engaged with the Department and the OPW. Like the others I have mentioned, whom I cannot forget, they are doing great work. The patience of the people of Skibbereen and the surrounding area is wearing thin. I hope the Minister of State will have good news for me.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. A flood relief scheme for the town of Skibbereen is being advanced by Cork County Council, as the contracting authority, in partnership with the OPW, which is providing the funding. The development and progression of the scheme is being overseen by a steering committee with representatives of the council, the OPW and RPS, the engineering consultants for the scheme. A public exhibition of the preferred scheme proposals took place in April this year and lasted for four weeks. The main proposals of the scheme include the construction of new walls and embankments along the River Ilen and some of its tributaries in the town, new pumping stations, localised channel regrading and improvements to the local drainage system. Approximately 60 submissions were received from members of the public on the proposed scheme during the exhibition. Some of these submissions raised concerns over the levels of protection to be provided in certain areas, based on past experiences of local people. The OPW and Cork County Council recognise that local knowledge can make a valuable contribution to fine-tuning scheme proposals. Therefore, the consultants undertaking the study were asked to undertake further surveys and analysis to alleviate the concerns raised at the exhibition before a decision could be made regarding the next steps in taking the scheme forward. These surveys have now been completed and some changes have been made to the proposed scheme.
An exhibition report which will deal in depth with all the issues raised by each submission is expected to be completed soon. When that report has been received, responses will be issued by the OPW to all parties who made submissions. The OPW, in consultation with the council, will decide on the appropriateness of moving forward with the project as proposed. It is expected that the scheme will be moved to detailed design once the responses are issued. It is envisaged that the detailed design process will commence before the end of November. It is hoped to complete that process, and the process of procuring a civil works contractor, by the middle of next year. This would allow construction to commence in the third quarter of 2014. To mitigate delays on the scheme, the OPW and Cork County Council agreed earlier this year to bring forward the site investigation works in advance of the detailed design process. These works, which commenced in September, are due for completion in December. This will greatly aid the progression of the detailed design.
The OPW's consultants and staff from Cork County Council have been on the ground collecting data from the flood event which occurred on 24 and 25 October. When all the data have been collected, they will need to be analysed. While it is possible that the analysis will identify issues that will necessitate some modification of the proposals, early indications suggest that no significant changes to the scheme will be required. While it is unfortunate for the town to experience this latest flooding event, the data collected should bring some additional certainty regarding the robustness of the proposed scheme that will be undertaken in the coming years. I am pleased to confirm that the OPW has made provision for the cost of implementing a scheme in Skibbereen in its financial profiles for the 2014-16 period. I look forward to the works commencing towards the end of next year. I sympathise with what Senator O'Donovan has said about the hardship this has caused to the people of Skibbereen. As I come from Mallow and also represent Fermoy and Midleton, I am fully cognisant of the flooding issues local people have had to endure in the absence of a flood relief scheme. I assure the Senator that Skibbereen will benefit from the scheme as soon as work on it commences. Mallow has ceased to have instances of flooding, with the exception of the Park Road area, which does not have any residents. These schemes have been quite successful. I look forward to a successful resolution of this issue also.
I will be brief. I thank the Minister of State. I accept that the council and the OPW are probably doing the best they can. I will continue to hold a watching brief in this regard, even if I will not be able to keep as close an eye on the matter as the Skibbereen flood committee and the others who are working to allay these difficulties. The Minister of State can relay that message to his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, whom I know very well. I raised my concerns about this issue with Dr. Martin Mansergh when he was the Minister of State responsible. I will continue to raise them. While I do not want to do so ad nauseam, I will highlight these matters again before next summer in order that we can ensure there is no more flooding at the end of next year. Of course, there is no guarantee that we will not have more flooding between now and 1 April 2014. I hope that will not happen for the sake of the people of Skibbereen, who deserve better. As I have said, I will be holding a watching brief. Like the Skibbereen eagle, I will keep my eye on the matter to ensure fair play is achieved. There must be no further delays with regard to this scheme.
I thank the Senator.
Credit Unions
Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit. As the Minister of State is well aware, the credit union movement across the country is facing many issues and challenges. I am concerned about the proposal to combine the community credit unions in Naas and Newbridge. I have particular worries about the management of this proposal and the precedent it might set for the credit union movement across the country, which is a great community movement. The community in Newbridge has been left in a very uncertain position over the last 23 months, since a special manager was appointed to Newbridge credit union on foot of certain developments within that institution. There seems to have been a distinct lack of consultation with the community. It is time for the community to get answers to certain questions.
I would like to put some specific questions to the Minister of State and would be grateful if I could get answers to each of them. Is there a plan B in the event of the failure of the proposed combination of Newbridge and Naas credit unions? Does the Minister for Finance have other options in place or lined up in the event of the proposed combination failing? Is he open to the recovery plan that has been proposed by people in Newbridge as an alternative? As the Minister of State knows, there is resistance and considerable concern about the proposed merger of the credit unions. What has the special manager achieved for the people of Newbridge and their credit union in the last 23 months? How much has the special manager cost Newbridge credit union at this stage? There is no need for me to labour the issues. This is a matter of considerable concern for the people of Newbridge and for people across the country whose credit unions face particular challenges relating to reserves, etc. I would be very grateful for some specific answers.
The Central Bank is responsible for the regulation and supervision of credit unions. That role includes the implementation of resolution action under the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011, where required. On 13 January 2012, the Central Bank of Ireland secured a High Court order for the appointment of a special manager to Newbridge Credit Union. Further High Court applications were made to extend the term of appointment of the special manager, the latest being in June 2013. High Court orders were secured for a six-month extension period on each occasion.
The special manager appointment was made because of Central Bank concerns about the high level of loan losses incurred by the credit union which impacted on the level of its reserves. There were also concerns about some of the lending made, which went beyond the traditional type of lending normally provided by credit unions. The extent of the problems at Newbridge means that it is not sustainable for it to continue as a stand-alone entity. As a resolution case with financial difficulties and viability concerns, it also does not meet the statutory conditions for stabilisation support. The Central Bank undertook a process under the Central Bank and Credit Institutions (Resolution) Act 2011 involving the examination of possible combinations with other credit unions. It is in the context of this process that the Naas proposal came on to the table.
It is important to set out the Minister's role in this process. The Central Bank has the statutory role of "resolution authority" under the 2011 Act. The role of the Minister under this process is essentially twofold. First, consultation with the Minister is a requirement under the intervention conditions. This means that the Minister was consulted in respect of the special management order and the associated extensions but does not provide for the Minister to have a decision-making role or a veto. The Minister would also be a consultee in respect of any proposed transfer order. Second, in the event that the Governor of the Central Bank requests the payment of an incentive for a transfer, the Minister's approval is needed for the Central Bank to provide that financial incentive from the resolution fund.
Senators will appreciate that, notwithstanding the extent of media coverage on the situation, the Central Bank process remains subject to strict confidentiality requirements under the High Court order and the Act. That confidentiality restriction applies equally to the Minister as it does to other parties and, therefore, there is a limit to what the Minister is permitted to say on the matter. However, I want to take the opportunity to emphasise once again that the Minister's core objective is to ensure that members' savings are protected notwithstanding the extent of the very real problems of Newbridge Credit Union. This will be the first case where the taxpayer is being called upon to cover the losses at a credit union and to ensure that members' savings will be protected. The money will come from the resolution fund to which the Government has contributed €250 million of taxpayers' money, which is recoupable over time from credit institutions via a levy.
The Minister is fully aware of the strength of feeling locally about the situation at Newbridge Credit Union, which has also been raised by public representatives in recent months. The Minister met the Newbridge Action Group on 19 September to hear its concerns about the process and to afford the group an opportunity to outline its alternative proposals. Following that meeting, the agreed next steps were for the Newbridge Action Group to submit its proposal to the Minister expeditiously. As agreed at the meeting with the action group, on receipt of its alternative proposal, the Minister forwarded it to Professor Honohan, Governor of the Central Bank, with a view to a meeting between the Central Bank and the action group. This is now a matter for the Central Bank and I understand the meeting with the group took place last week.
The Central Bank continues to work under the provisions of the High Court Order and the Act to bring a conclusion to the intervention at Newbridge. The focus of the Minister in his limited role under the Act is to secure the protection of members' savings and he had encouraged the Central Bank to progress this issue with a view to an expeditious conclusion.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I appreciate what he says about the limitations on the Minister's role. The fact remains that there is considerable disquiet. The central question, which has still to be answered, is what will happen if the proposed merger of the two credit unions fails. There are reports of an increase in loan sharks in Newbridge. People are worried about their savings across the country. I hear what the Minister of State says about the fund that is available to guarantee people's savings, which is the most important thing. However, people feel that the Central Bank wields unaccountable power without sufficient consultation. These credit unions have, after all, been built up by communities across the country and it is probably time that people heard about what is going to happen in the area.
Commercial Rates Issues
Often, politicians and journalists do not agree. That can often happen for valid reasons on both sides. Journalists can be overly critical of politicians at times, sometimes unfairly so. Martin Breheny from the Irish Independent is a journalist for whom I have high regard. Most of the time, he reports on sport and does a very good job. His article last Wednesday was particularly damning of the inaction of politicians in dealing with a situation which has manifested itself with the GAA, the IRFU and the FAI. These associations have been hit with rates bills of the order of millions. I attended a briefing on job creation in sport which was also attended by the general secretary of the GAA, Páraic Duffy, the president of the FAI, John Delaney, and others. The figure for Croke Park has risen from €600,000 to €1.5 million. The figure is similar for the Aviva Stadium. That is totally ridiculous and unacceptable. It reflects a lack of political will to deal with it.
The GAA is an amateur organisation. It is appalling to think that there will be a €1 million euro annual increase in its rates bill for Croke Park. This must be dealt with urgently and the uncertainty surrounding the issue must be cleared up by Government. It has been dragging on for a number of weeks. It was brought to my attention at that briefing which took place about seven or eight weeks ago. I agree with everything Martin Breheny said in his article last week. Letters from senior Ministers to other Ministers are frankly a joke. It is not that they do not meet each other. They meet each other every day of the week. The uncertainty felt at the headquarters of the GAA will percolate down to other clubs which have members' bars and which will be hit with this astronomical increase in rates.
I am from County Clare which had a very positive experience in Croke Park this year. There are many other counties that have won All-Ireland championships and had positive experiences in Croke Park. Croke Park is a major income generator for north County Dublin and the entire city of Dublin on several weekends during the year. It does not just relate to All-Ireland football and hurling finals but semi-finals, quarter finals, Leinster finals and concerts. There were a number of events last year relating to the Eucharistic Congress when it was here. It is appalling to think that a voluntary sports organisation like the GAA is facing this type of financial uncertainty. It is not acceptable for a Government that prides itself on promoting sport and that has done much to promote sport to allow this type of uncertainty to continue. I raise issues on the Adjournment on a regular basis and I know the standard answer. It is no disrespect to the Minister of State with responsibility for small business who is here. I saw the response that Deputy John O'Mahony received when he raised this matter during a Topical Issue debate in the Dáil.
I sincerely hope that is not the type of response I am going to get tonight. If it is, I will be encouraging the Minister of State, Deputy John Perry, who is an excellent Minister of State, to take the matter on and deal with it, because it is simply shameful that voluntary organisations are faced with this type of financial uncertainty.
Like Clare, Sligo may not have had positive experiences in Croke Park but the county certainly had them last week in the Aviva Stadium. I congratulate Sligo Rovers on winning the FAI Cup. We are very fortunate to have in the GAA headquarters one of the finest stadiums in the world.
The Valuation Act 2001 provides for the exemption from rates of land that is developed for sport such as playing pitches, golf course lands, tennis courts, etc. In accordance with this provision, all playing pitches are exempt from rates. The Act also provides that community halls such as sports clubhouses which are not licensed to sell alcohol and the facilities of which are not used primarily for profit or gain, are not rateable. Again, this allows for the exemption of most sports club premises throughout the country. The vast majority of sports facilities throughout the State are therefore rates-free. However, the Act specifically provides that where a club is licensed to sell alcohol and is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904, it is no longer deemed to be a community hall and therefore the premises occupied by that club are rateable. The sale of alcohol is a commercial activity and licensed club premises are competing with other licensed premises.
The Valuation Office, as part of its revaluation programme, is in the process of updating the valuation of all commercial properties. The revaluation has been completed and is effective for rates purposes in the local authority areas of Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. The revaluation of Dublin city and the three rating authorities in Waterford is nearing completion and proposed valuation certificates have been issued in these areas. Final valuation certificates for rateable properties in these four local authorities will issue in December 2013.
At this time it is only the revaluation process that is likely to give rise to increases in rates for sports clubs since the local authorities, in order to assist business in as much as they can, have not increased their ARV, annual rate on valuation, in recent years. For Dublin city and Waterford the valuations proposed are not yet in the public domain and at this stage are a matter between the occupier of the property and the Commissioner of Valuation. Before the valuations are published the occupier can make representations to the commissioner and after publication appeals against a valuation can be lodged. Any increase in rates as a result of the revaluation process will be because it reflects a relative increase in value of a property when compared to all other rateable premises.
This assessment of relative value is completed by the Commissioner of Valuation on an independent basis. The revaluation programme will update the values on which rates are based to reflect modern values. As it currently stands rates in areas that have not been revalued are based on values and relativities that persisted in 1998 or much earlier. The revaluation programme will ensure that rates are levied on a more equitable basis. Any concession that might be considered for the category of property is likely to erode the equity in the system. First, any concession to one category of property would have to be passed on to the occupiers of all other rateable valuations. Local authorities calculate the ARV on the basis of the aggregate value on their valuation list. Second, many sports clubs with a bar are in competition with other licensed premises which also pay rates. This would further increase the inequity of a concession.
If a property is rateable then it is the commissioner who determines its value and he is completely independent in the exercise of his duties under the Valuation Act 2001. The making of valuations for rating purposes is his sole prerogative. I am informed by the commissioner that for sports clubs the playing area is not included in the valuation calculation. The Act does not prescribe any particular method of valuation for a particular class or use of property. However, equity and uniformity of approach are key valuation principles and it would be unfair to statutorily prescribe a method of valuation that advantaged or disadvantaged one ratepayer or class of ratepayers over another.
The values determined and the methods used to determine values can be the subject of representations from the ratepayer, appeal to the commissioner, appeal to the independent Valuation Tribunal and to the courts. The practices used and the values determined are, therefore, continuously tested. I believe the current system, which exempts a high percentage of sports facilities, achieves a balance between the interests of sports clubs and the broader ratepayer base.
I do not accept that for one minute. That is a typical civil servant systems-driven answer. The question of fairness and equity and all such methodology used throughout the prepared script that the Minister of State has delivered flies in the face of voluntary sports groups. These organisations may very well use a bar and a licensed premises to fund what are totally under-funded bodies when it comes to the State.
I am only a Senator and unfortunately I do not have the power to resolve this, but I appeal to the people who are leading the Government and who have the power to resolve it to deal with it. The answer provided is simply not acceptable and I know that if I was discussing the matter with the Minister of State privately, he would tell me it was not acceptable also. This issue must be dealt with. The sports people of Ireland are expecting leadership on this matter and so am I.
I respect the Senator's view. However, most sports facilities are exempt from rates. Those liable for rates because they have a bar are in competition with other licensed premises. From that point of view, we should consider the investment, the opportunity and the valuation of commercial operations. Let us suppose a person is joining a sports complex that is paying rates or let us suppose someone is in a facility. Then perhaps there should be a consideration of fairness with regard to how that operates. The valuation of a sports complex applies only to the licensed area, not the whole complex. Perhaps with arbitration it may not be as dire as the Senator has indicated. If rates are going to increase, it is most likely to be in the areas that are being revalued and the revaluation programme is bringing greater equity into the system.
The Commissioner of Valuation has the expertise in this area and he is completely independent from the Minister in the exercise of his functions. The determination of the value he makes can be challenged and tested through an extensive representation and appeals process. Achieving a balance is important in this as in other areas. Many clubs have charitable status as well and, therefore, may not be liable for taxation from the point of view of the profits. It is always difficult but I believe the current system strikes a fair balance between the sometimes competing interests of sports clubs and the wider ratepayer base. Having said that, I respect what the Senator has said and I will convey his concerns to the Minister.
Trade Union Recognition
I welcome the Minister of State and, in a sporting vein, congratulate him on the great victory in the cup final by Sligo Rovers. It was certainly a fantastic advertisement for League of Ireland soccer.
I meant to say that also.
I suppose the medals the players won will probably go down as collectors items because it will be the only time in the history of the League of Ireland that "Silgo" Rovers will have won a cup final. That is worth noting.
I wish to ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to outline a specific timeframe pertaining to the introduction of collective bargaining legislation and to clarify for the House whether mandatory trade union recognition is likely to be included in a legislative framework.
The Government committed in the programme for Government to bringing in such legislation. The programme for Government has a commitment to reform the current law on employee's rights to engage in collective bargaining and the current Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 to ensure compliance by the State with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We are two and half years into government and while the commitment has been in the programme for Government we still have not seen the colour of the legislation. We are required under a European court decision to bring forward this legislation. In recent times we have seen several debates on the matter in this and the Lower House. The tenor of those debates held that some discussions and consultations have to be held with both sides, meaning the trade union movement and the employers.
Based on a recent reply given in the Lower House, those consultations have concluded and an indication was given that the legislation would be brought forward in November. This is the first week of November. When will the legislation be published? Will it give recognition to employees to be members of trade unions? In this, the centenary of the 1913 Lock-out, it would be most appropriate and proper that this legislation would be published to pay tribute to the memory of Jim Larkin and others like him. I would like the Bill to be published this year and I hope the Minister of State will give a favourable response.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to promote collective bargaining through the laws of this country and through the development of an institutional framework supportive of a voluntary system of industrial relations that is premised upon freedom of contract and freedom of association. There is an extensive range of statutory provisions designed to back up the voluntary bargaining process. The freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively are also guaranteed in a number of international instruments which the State has ratified and which it is, therefore, bound to uphold under international law.
Furthermore, Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to form associations and unions. It has been established in a number of legal cases, however, that the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of association does not guarantee workers the right to have their union recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining. The 2007 decision of the Supreme Court in Ryanair v. the Labour Court cast doubt on the mechanism that had been established in the Industrial Relations Acts 2001 and 2004, to resolve problems between employers and workers regarding to terms and conditions.
Prior to the outcome of the Ryanair Supreme Court case, the original legislative arrangements had been seen as a workable compromise. The legislative model for resolving issues relating to employee representation had reflected a shared commitment that, where negotiating arrangements are in place, the most effective means of resolving differences which arise between employers and trade unions representing employees is by voluntary collective bargaining. In the absence of a practice of voluntary collective bargaining, subject to agreed qualifying criteria, the Industrial Relations Acts 2001 and 2004 provided a mechanism by which the fairness of the employment conditions of workers in their totality could be assessed. The Towards 2016 transitional agreement of 2008 under social partnership contained a commitment to establish a review process to consider the legal and other steps necessary to enable the employee representation mechanisms that had been established under previous agreements and in legislation to operate as they had been intended. The agreement also provided for a commitment to bring forward legislative proposals to prohibit the victimisation of trade union members and to prohibit the incentivisation of persons not to be members of a trade union. The review process did not result in substantive progress being made on the issue.
There is a commitment in the programme for Government to ensure Irish law on employees' right to engage in collective bargaining - the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 - is consistent with recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR. Acting on the commitment has required consultation with stakeholders, including employer and worker representatives, and a review of the experience of the operation of the existing legislative framework as put in place under the Industrial Relations Acts 2001 and 2004, and the consequences of the litigation that has arisen in the operation of these Acts.
With this in mind, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation wrote to relevant stakeholders inviting their observations on the matter. Submissions were subsequently received and a series of initial first step meetings took place between departmental officials and stakeholders in mid-2013. Discussions with stakeholders are ongoing. It is the Minister's intention to update the Government on progress in this regard in the near future. The established dispute settling institutions should continue to play an important role in disputes over trade union recognition. The established procedures can be improved and secured without introducing a mandatory requirement on employers to recognise trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. The Minister hopes to put proposals on the issue to the Cabinet shortly. With regard to the programme for Government commitment, I am certain satisfactory arrangements can be put in place that are suited to our constitutional, social and economic traditions as well as our international obligations. I am also convinced that they can be framed to ensure continued success in attracting investment into our economy.
I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. A number of Members in both Houses have raised this issue repeatedly since the beginning of the year. We are trundling along slowly but we seem to be getting there. The Minister of State referred to "the near future" and proposals on the issue going to the Cabinet soon. Will he clarify what these references mean? Does it mean before the end of November or will it be December? It is important that the matter be dealt with in 2013.
The Government is committed to exploring the differences between the employer and trade unions perspectives on the issue of employee representation through a process of dialogue. A number of complex issues are involved, including the experience of the operation of the legislative framework put in place under the Industrial Relations 2001, the consequences of the litigation that has arisen in the operation of these Acts and the implications of relevant ECHR ratings. The process will necessarily have regard to a number of issues, including the legal advice on the ECHR judgments, the definition of what constitutes collective bargaining, the concept of an exceptional body, providing protection for employers in terms of victimisation for membership activities on behalf of trade unions, addressing the issue of incentivisation of workers to induce employers to surrender important trade union rights. I am hopeful that through a similar co-operative approach a pragmatic and workable solution to the differences on the issue of employee representation can be found.
In 2010 the ICTU, acting on behalf of the airline pilots in Ryanair, submitted a complaint to the ILO committee on the freedom of association that Ireland was not in conformity with provisions of the ILO Convention No. 98, the right to organise and collective bargaining. The complaint involved allegations of anti-union discrimination. The ILO committee on freedom of association considered the submission and this is the backdrop to the issue. The Minister has stated clearly he is committed to going to the Cabinet shortly with his recommendations following the consultation that has taken place. I am confident there will be a clear position from him on what he will do on this issue before year end.
I would like a copy of the supplementary reply.
I will forward a copy.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 November 2013.