Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I am interested in the question Senator Gavan posed about language and communication. When the new scheme came in and the WRC made an issue of visits to vessels to inform the owners and the employers of the new scheme, did it attempt in any way to talk to the workers, to inform them of their rights or to communicate those rights to them? I suppose it is the same question in a roundabout way. Had the WRC considered that this scheme covers workers as well as employers and whether the WRC could inform the workers of what they are entitled to? Locating an Arabic translator in this country does not involve rocket science. One could pick one up anywhere. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but there are plenty of good people with strong linguistic skills who can speak both Arabic and English very well. It is a matter of reaching out to inform these workers of their rights. I would like the witnesses to expand a little on what they may have done, even if they could not speak to the workers directly, to give them some information about their rights. Have the witnesses' organisations, particularly the WRC, made contact with any of the fishers who suffer exploitation? Have they ever had contact with them, sat down in front of them, even through an interpreter, met them, seen them as real people and discussed their issues directly with them?

What I cannot get over - it struck me during the previous session as well - is the disparity between the evidence and the reports of the ITF versus the evidence from the industry and those before us. The ITF seems to have been able to illustrate to us dozens of incidents of exploitation but no one else, including the industry and those present, seems to be able to match that. Can the witnesses explain this disparity? Is someone telling porkies or dreaming this up? What is the problem? Does the WRC have a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out its work in general? The answer to that question might shed light on the situation. Famously, someone once said that the Labour Relations Commission had fewer inspectors than there were dog inspectors in the country. If the position has changed, has it changed sufficiently to allow the WRC to do its job properly in respect of workers' rights as well as employers' obligations? How many inspectors does the WRC have and is the number sufficient to cover what is required?

Have the witnesses have ever found actual employment breaches and, if so - leaving aside what is in the documentation - how many? I understand that logbooks and documentation are a confusing part of the fishing industry and often do not match up to what one would find in an office, on a factory floor or whatever. That should not be the case but it is. Do the witnesses have other evidence of breaches of employment law in the industry?