Gerald Nash (Labour) | Oireachtas source

We are here because there is a problem, and I am pleased that the witnesses are here to respond to some of the claims that were made just before the summer recess. I can assure Ms McIntyre that where the ITF or SIPTU has any evidence whatsoever in relation to suspected breaches or, indeed, any unlawful activity that that has been, to the best of my knowledge, passed on to the authorities, as should be the case. I want to put on record that I have met some individuals who have claimed that they have been trafficked into this country and I, along with other colleagues, have taken the necessary action, as one would expect from a Member of the Oireachtas and from a responsible citizen, to bring those matters to the attention of the authorities. I want to advise Ms McIntyre that where workers are designated as employees, trade unions such as the ITF and SIPTU are quite entitled to organise collectively with those workers and to seek to represent their interests. That is a fundamental human right and something that I do not believe anybody in this Chamber will apologise for. It was a hard-won right which is defended by the Constitution and international law, and that happens within in a legal framework. There are no passes for any industry in terms of the protection and vindication of the rights of anybody. I hope that she would accept that.

Nobody here wants to see any kind of ritualistic hand wringing and declarations that there are no problems at all. In fairness to some of the witnesses, they have recognised that there are some operators in the industry who do not uphold best practice, to put it charitably, and who are under suspicion for a whole host of reasons in terms of alleged breaches of this particular scheme and, indeed, much more serious elements of Irish legislation. It is in the interests of the industry in general to accept that there is an issue and to work with the authorities to address it because it is in the interests of good operators in this industry to root out those rogue elements and to ensure the reputational damage to the Irish fishing industry is arrested and addressed.

It is probably useful at this point in time to perhaps reflect on some WRC figures presented to us, which I understand are publically available. The WRC has only been statutorily responsible for monitoring and regulating sectors of the industry since the introduction of the scheme. Going back to first principles, the whole idea of the scheme was to classify people who were working here, in some cases illegally, and give them some kind of a status, but classifying them as employees. When they are classified as employees, the WRC as the labour inspectorate and the authority responsible for employment rights vindication in this country, takes responsibility for the way in which those workers are treated, at least from the perspective of employment rights. The information we have today, which the witnesses may or may not have, suggests that there have been 232 inspections to date up to September of this year. The scheme only went live in the middle of 2016. That is a significant number of inspections. Across a range of different elements of employment rights legislation 198 contraventions were detected. That is a very high non-compliance rate in anybody's language. The Naval Service had different responsibilities for regulating the fisheries industry over the years, but this is new for the WRC because of the classification of employees in the sector. In any person's language that is extremely high, and we all have to be concerned when we see figures produced by the WRC in the course of its work which suggest that 29 individuals did not have the relevant permission to work. The permission to work can mean a permit through the permit scheme or another type of arrangement that would ensure these individuals are lawfully here. That is high, and so is the reference to the fact that in the context of the 198 contraventions, 70 of them involved having no records whatsoever in their possession.

Mr. Conway referred to the fact there are only a small number of prosecutions, at least at this point in time, which are being pursued by the WRC. Of course, it is the function of the WRC to work with industry and trade unions to ensure there is compliance, and the WRC will comment on that later on today in terms of how that is working out. I am very interested to hear their views on the record in that regard. In anyone's language, the numbers are high. They are high for any sector. This is notwithstanding the difficulties that some may have had in bedding down and understanding how this new system operates. I know the WRC went to enormous lengths to work with the industry to brief it on what not just our expectations are but what the legal obligations of the industry operators are to the people who are working in their industry.

I would like to refer to a number of points made by the witnesses in the course of their contributions. Mr. Murphy and Ms McIntyre referenced the need to expand the scheme to vessels under 15 m and 12 m, respectively. That is worthy of consideration. Senators Gavan and Reilly expressed the view that they are open to that. It was also suggested that non-EEA fishermen should be enabled to be share fishermen, which is an issue previously discussion by the committee. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses elaborate on how that would be done. This scheme was introduced in response to complaints by the ITF, other trade unions and the Guardianinvestigation which highlighted a number of issues in the sector, including allegations of exploitation of fishers, particularly those from non-EEA states. I find it difficult to square that circle. If a person continues to be a self-employed share fisherman and he or she has no status in this country how can we as a state afford that person the type of protections I believe every citizen in this country or anybody working here should be entitled to. If the witnesses have a view on how that circle can be squared I would be pleased to hear it. I take a keen interest in this area at a policy level and I have not yet figured out how that could be permitted.

Mr. O'Donnell is on record over the years as identifying that it is very difficult to attract people to work in the fishing industry for a host of different reasons. We all understand the conditions are very difficult, that it is a unique industry in many respects and as such it is difficult to retain skilled and trained staff. Pay is an issue in the sector. There is no doubt about that. There are many fishing villages in my own constituency and I know that during the so-called boom years many people left fishing to work in construction and other sectors which were much more profitable and on their return to the fishing industry found it was not as profitable as when they have left it. I understand people make decisions in terms of what is best for them and their families and so on. That being the case, would the industry consider engaging in a sectoral employment order with those in the industry who seek to represent workers to ensure there is a basic statutory floor of pay and terms and conditions in the sector in order to retain staff and to promote the industry as a good employer and a sustainable industry? This is something that the industry should consider and keep an open mind on. We could be here all day and all year talking about the challenges the industry faces and how we can improve this scheme but at the end of the day fixing this scheme will not fix all the industry's problems. The industry has an issue in terms of sustainability of profitability in some sectors, on which I would like them to elaborate. I understand and accept that. Would it consider a collective agreement for the sector, which is enabled by the 2015 Industrial Relations Act to ensure that there is a basic floor of pay and terms and conditions in an industry about which it is clear all of the witnesses are very passionate? If they are as passionate about the industry as I think they are they should consider that.

I have a couple of questions for Mr. O'Donnell, to which some of the other witnesses might want to contribute as well. Mr. O'Donnell indicated that he had been in contact with the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, who is now the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation in regard to various amendments to the scheme which he believes would enable it to work better. Has he had any response from the Minister or any other Minister in recent months given that this issue has been front and centre in terms of public commentary? It seems that one of the problems is that there is no one Minister taking responsibility for the operation of this scheme or the improvement of it. I have a theory as to why that is the case, which I will share with the witnesses later. Has Mr. O'Donnell had any response on this issue? I want to him to be clear in that regard because what he says will help us to resolve the issues he is experiencing and the issues workers in the sector and the trade unions that represent them are experiencing.

How many non-EEA fishers are in the industry? I am of the opinion that there are more than are covered by this scheme. Does Mr. O'Donnell agree with the upper limit of 500 permits per annum provided for in the original scheme? The official record suggests that far fewer permits have been applied for. The original limit may have been garnered from contributions by the industry at the meetings around design of the scheme.