Mr. Liam Kelly:

I hope I got all the areas the Deputy covered. I will take the questions in no particular order, if the Deputy does not mind. Starting with the scheme, when a worker is given permission to work within atypical working scheme, some of the revisions made to it in the time since it was established now mandate that the contract of employment is provided in the fisher's native language. A link is also provided to the WRC web page where information can be found on rights and how to file a complaint. That information is translatable into 108 languages and there are also various leaflets available in the main languages of the countries where fishers usually come from.

The employment contract is also required to state explicitly the pay for the hours worked. That is the national minimum wage. A minimum of 39 hours must also be paid, regardless of whether fewer hours were worked. There is also a requirement for workers to get their pay slips and the records of the hours worked. The letter of approval that goes to the worker has a section with the employment rights explained in the fisher's native language. In that context as well, a review was undertaken as part of the mediation agreement between the WRC and ITF in respect of it being permissible for people to transfer from a boat within the currency of the atypical working scheme.

Broadly speaking, people are informed before they become aware of what their rights are and where they can go if they feel those rights are not being observed. I understand and accept that in some cases there may be issues with literacy and we have to work to get past that in those cases.

Turning to the cognisable period, that does not just apply to fishers. It applies across what is called Schedule 5 cases in the Workplace Relations Act, so it applies to the national minimum wage, organisation of working time and matters such as that. Mr. O'Brien raised that. Insofar as the legal framework that our adjudication officers can look at, it is within six months of the notification of the complaint, and in reasonable circumstances 12 months. In reality, in quite a lot of cases the 12 months is examined. For example, there was a fisher case quite recently where due to the individual's language skills, the adjudicator said that in that case it absolutely should go back 12 months because the individual may not have been aware of his rights. In instances also of what is called the Von Colson principle in terms of the organisation of working time, it may be that as a dissuasive effect up to two years' pay may be allowed in circumstances where that happens.

With regard to Europe-wide approaches to campaigns and inspections, we work closely with the European Labour Authority on campaigns on employment records. We work bilaterally with countries to ensure that people who come here know what their rights are and who they should go to if they are being breached. Only four weeks ago, I met Mr. Boiangiu, the director of the European Labour Authority, to outline how we might progress the process in that area around bilateral agreements and practice for inspections drawing on the work of other inspectorates across Europe.

In terms of sector-wide initiatives, from time to time we carry out what is called inspection ready campaigns. For example, last year we met Meat Industry Ireland and outlined that if an employer is to be inspected, there are certain expectations of the employer. There have to be accurate records and they have to be up to date. They have to be in a particular format. The employer needs to be able to show that payslips are given to employees and also has to list the number of employees. We work with the sectors and that is just one example of how we can drive compliance in particular risk sectors. I mentioned some of them in my opening statement. They will come as no surprise to the members of the committee.