Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 9 March 2021
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation
General Scheme of Employment Permits (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill 2019: Discussion (Resumed)
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank members and witnesses for participating in this committee meeting in line with the exceptional circumstances due to Covid-19. I remind everyone that, apart from me and the members of the committee secretariat, members and witnesses are required to participate remotely and members are required to participate from within the Leinster House complex. Apologies have been received from Deputies Stanton and Duffy.
We will continue our consideration of the general scheme of the Employment Permits (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill 2019, which has been submitted to the committee by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment for pre-legislative scrutiny. At the previous meeting we received a briefing from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. To discuss the matter today, I am pleased to welcome from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, Dr. Kara McGann and Ms Joanne Redmond, and from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, Mr. Liam Berney.
Before we start, I will explain to the witnesses some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding reference that may be made to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, today's witnesses are to give evidence remotely from a location outside the parliamentary precincts. As such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses physically present.
Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
Opening statements have already been circulated to all members. To commence our consideration of this matter I now invite Dr. McGann from IBEC to make her opening statement.
Dr. Kara McGann:
I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to address it on this important issue for the business sector. IBEC was delighted to contribute to the review of economic migration policy which served to inform many elements of this Bill. The Bill seeks to build upon the existing employment permits system which has provided a strong framework to supplement skills and labour needs in the State in recent years, and ensure it is future-proof, agile and responsive to the dynamic Irish labour market. It gives priority, correctly in our view, to the ability of the system to adapt to rapid changes of a positive or negative nature in the needs of the labour market of the future. This will support the competitiveness of business in Ireland while still prioritising the Irish and EEA labour pool, continuing to safeguard the labour market, and supporting the employment rights of permit holders. However, its success will be ultimately judged by how it delivers. This is a complex area that requires collaboration from all stakeholders, including business, if we are to respond to the changing needs of our economy and its citizens. It is essential that business is supported to remain competitive and agile against a backdrop of the pandemic, Brexit, globalisation, changing demographics and consumer preferences and that we ensure the capacity of business not only to meet existing demands but to grow with the needs of the market. This will require a combination of workers, including those requiring employment permits.
Industry remains committed to enhancing our indigenous skills supply to meet labour market needs through a combination of upskilling and reskilling programmes. This has been demonstrated through collaborations between industry and education on various Skillnet, Springboard and apprenticeship programmes and the ICT skills action plans aimed at building the domestic supply of high-level ICT graduates. Employers will also engage fully in the labour market activation measures proposed for the pandemic recovery effort. Despite this, we know that given the fast-paced, changing global business model, education and training cannot meet all demands in real time. Developments in infrastructure, increased capacity, innovation and changing skills needs take time. However, some sectors are simultaneously experiencing levels of growth that are seeing demand far outweigh supply.
The general scheme has identified several areas where flexibility and responsiveness can be built into the system. These include reforming the operational features of the labour market needs test to align with the appropriate job advertising practices used by employers today. This will also have the effect of being more targeted and focused in reaching Irish and European jobseekers first. Introducing a seasonal employment permit will bring us in line with other jurisdictions and help alleviate labour market demands during peak production or delivery times in specific sectors. The introduction of a special circumstances employment permit to deal with occasional exceptional circumstances where an employment permit may be granted for an unusual but important skill set and streamlining the processes for trusted partner and renewal applications.
The Bill also retains sensible rules such as the 50:50 rule. However, there remains an issue with how that rule is administered and this is hampering job growth for some employers that operate multiple businesses in Ireland and results in the loss of jobs and projects to other international jurisdictions.
Due to their group legal structure, they must adhere to the 50:50 rule at multiple levels despite acting as a group in terms of their growth of jobs and employment and contribution to the economy. Many find a disproportionate number of critical skills vacancies arising in specific teams leading to an imbalance in 50:50 levels despite the overall group being within the requirements. This issue arises from the administrative decision to use the Revenue Commissioners employer registration number as the identifier for tracking compliance. To prevent the Irish economy losing out, it is essential that a solution to this be found to help to grow the critical skills roles and the associated jobs in the Irish labour market.
Despite its many strengths, the general scheme, unfortunately, does not directly tackle the issue of the low-skilled and unskilled workers who are also needed to support the maintenance and growth of industry in certain sectors. Shortages among lower-skilled workers and subsequent pressure on wages have the potential to be as harmful to the Irish economy as a shortage of skilled labour. This is particularly the case for indigenous businesses that are predominantly based in sectors that use a high proportion of low-skill labour, such as the care, manufacturing and agrifood sectors. The absence of this category of worker is not being addressed by the pool of resident workers, and these sectors are not in a position to compete with higher-paying sectors owing to their low margins. Failing to resolve this crisis is likely to endanger existing business and limit the ability of organisations to take on new business opportunities internationally. In the longer term, this will also impact their ability to meet Department targets set for certain sectors – for example, targets under Food Wise 2025.
Many of the impacted workers in the care and food processing sectors remain on the ineligible list, thus stunting the ability of businesses to meet existing needs, let alone grow. This is also impacting workforce development because some employers struggle to staff a shift, let alone release people for learning and development. Given our commitments to lifelong learning as a way to remain competitive, this is a worrying trend.
IBEC believes a model such as the lower-skilled occupations visa used in Canada or the essential skills work visa in New Zealand could offer opportunities and parameters that could suit Ireland's need for lower-skilled general operatives beyond what the general employment permit offers. The eligibility requirements are for the equivalent of a high-school diploma or two years' job-specific training, and such visas define the duration, wages and conditions for the workers' stay in the country.
One of the challenges in the provision of low-skilled workers that arose during the review of economic migration policy concerned how greater access to low-skilled immigrant workers may stifle innovation and the automation of certain roles. However, many of the sectors in question are sectors where future automation is not possible or where a transition to automation away from labour will be slow and costly, such as in social care and healthcare. These jobs require unpredictable, non-routine work involving personal interaction and emotional intelligence rather than artificial intelligence and are not easily replaced by automation. As such, the repeated reference to conditionality around knowledge transfer and process innovation to be prescribed in regulations is one that many employers may struggle with.
In an increasingly uncertain global environment, policy must continue to innovate and challenge boundaries. New ways to attract migrants must be adopted to meet the labour market needs that extend beyond our capacity. Failure to meet the skills and labour market demands will do untold, long-term damage to elements of our economy.
The general scheme reflects a welcome Bill that aims to provide a more responsive and agile employment permit system for Ireland. In doing so, it will support the economy and its ambitions for growth while future-proofing the system for the expected ebbs and flows of the labour market. I thank members of the joint committee for the opportunity to present IBEC's views on this important Bill.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Dr. McGann. I invite Mr. Berney to make an opening statement on behalf of ICTU.
Mr. Liam Berney:
Congress welcomes the opportunity to provide the committee with its views on the general scheme of the Employment Permits (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill. The proposed legislation was considered by this committee in 2019 and, as part of that process, Congress made a written submission. While much has changed since 2019, the concerns raised in that submission form the basis of my remarks today. If members would like a copy of the submission of 2019, we can provide it to them later.
Before commenting specifically on the proposed legislation, we would question whether this is the appropriate time to be making the proposed changes. When this legislation was first proposed in 2019, there were very low levels of unemployment. However, because of the pandemic and the associated public health restrictions, around 500,000 people are in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment. This is on top of the number receiving the jobseeker's benefit or jobseeker's allowance. While it is likely that a substantial number of these workers will return to employment following the pandemic, nobody can predict with any certainty how many jobs will be permanently lost. In our view, it would be prudent not to proceed with this legislation until the end of the pandemic, when a clearer picture will have emerged on the numbers of workers who are unemployed.
Turning to the specific proposals in the proposed legislation, it is important to note that migrant workers have played and continue to play a key role in the Irish economy. The key issue for Congress and our affiliated unions concerns the rights migrants have when they come to work in Ireland and how these rights can be vindicated. We have reviewed the proposed legislation from this perspective and we are concerned that some of the proposed changes will further undermine the position of migrant workers in Ireland.
As Dr. McGann stated, the legislation proposes to introduce a seasonal work permit. We regard this as particularly problematic. The problem that arises is ensuring that workers employed on such permits have the appropriate terms and conditions of employment. However, because the work permit will be issued for a short period, the difficulties with enforcement will multiply and the difficulties for workers in securing redress will increase exponentially. It has been argued by some that Ireland is an outlier in the EU by not having seasonal work permits. If alignment with other European countries is to take place, it must be genuine. This involves aligning all labour standards, including the right to collective bargaining.
It is proposed to restructure the labour market test so that it is easier for employers to demonstrate they have sought to fill vacancies within the EU and EEA. It is a fundamental plank of our labour market policy that where employment vacancies arise, they should be advertised domestically in the first instance and then in the EU and EEA. It is only when vacancies cannot be filled from these sources that a work permit can be sought. The changes proposed have the potential to severely undermine this important labour market regulation. It is also proposed that the rules would be no longer prescribed in primary legislation but in regulations and statutory instruments. Providing that primary legislation may be replaced by regulations has the potential to undermine the role of the Oireachtas and, in turn, frustrate public scrutiny.
The introduction of a special circumstances work permit is also proposed. We understand that this new type of work permit would be available in circumstances where a specific niche need has been identified and the normal conditions attaching to the granting of a work permit cannot be fulfilled. It is proposed that the rules for the granting of such work permits be provided for in regulations. We suggest that further scrutiny is required to determine the extent to which there is a need for this type of work permit. If it has been established that there is a genuine need for this, the rules applying to the operation of the scheme should be prescribed in primary legislation.
Congress recognises the valuable role that migrant workers play in our country. They play a crucial role in providing many important public services. During the pandemic, they have been crucial to the functioning of the health service. We are concerned that the proposed legislation seems to be addressing the needs of employers only and is aimed at making it easier for employers to obtain work permits. There are no proposals in the draft legislation to enhance and protect migrant workers or to ensure they are guaranteed their employment rights while working here.
Leaving aside the shortcomings in the proposed Bill and the balancing measures that might be put in place, we question whether it is appropriate to make such fundamental changes to the work permits regime when there is great uncertainty over the state of the labour market and the rates of unemployment we will face when the pandemic is over.
I am happy to take questions. I apologise for the notifications that could be heard on my laptop as I was speaking. I do not know how to turn them off.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is no bother. I invite members to discuss this issue with the witnesses. First is Deputy Louise O'Reilly. The Sinn Féin group has 14 minutes.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses. I want to address the issue of the seasonal employment permits in the first instance because I find them to comprise the most troubling aspect of this legislation. I want to put some questions to the representatives of IBEC. By way of context, I want to refer to answers that were sent to us by the Department in response to questions I asked last week.
Regarding initiatives undertaken in respect of the meat processing sector, the Department stated that the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, had been active in the sector for a number of years carrying out inspections. I will not read all of the replies, but the important figure is the 46% of inspections that detected breaches of employment law to some extent, for example, adequate records, working time, pay issues and employment permit issues. The WRC recovered almost €184,000 in outstanding wages. It is shocking that we are not just discussing bringing more workers into that environment but also shortening the time they are in Ireland. As ICTU pointed out in its submission, this greatly hinders workers' ability to vindicate their legal rights because it is not possible for people to get organised or become familiar with their legal entitlements if they are only in Ireland for a couple of months. We see from this information that, in some instances, we cannot trust employers in this regard. As we found out, 46% of employers were not adhering to the requirements. In light of this, do the representatives from IBEC believe it is fair to bring workers into that environment? Clearly, the issues in question have not been addressed.
Dr. Kara McGann:
Regardless of whether a worker is on a permit, the fundamental position that all employees, including those on permits, have the protection of employment rights legislation is not impacted.
The Deputy mentioned seasonal work permits specifically. The Department decides on durations, protection of employment rights, remuneration and the conditions attached to those permits. We know from across the range of industries that need seasonal workers that this is a pressing need, one that cannot be met locally. We are continuing to look locally, though. For example, Teagasc and the Department of Social Protection initiated the help to harvest programme last year. It was not very successful, but employers are keen to engage again this year, take the lessons from last year and, it is hoped, increase the number of local workers who join the programme.
Regarding breaches of the legislation, from talking to colleagues in other sectors, they welcome the announced and unannounced inspections and those breaches being addressed.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Dr. McGann referred to the lessons of last year. As some of those present might be aware, Senator Gavan and I are former trade union organisers. I do not want to put words into my colleagues' mouths, but we learned that nothing encouraged workers like decent pay and fair terms and conditions. It is regrettable that some employers have not learned this lesson.
In the ten years the critical skills list has been in existence, it has only been updated once, in 2015. Is it IBEC's view that the list could and should be reviewed regularly and that more could be done to train workers in advance instead of adding to or removing critical skills from the list? I will also ask Mr. Berney for his view on this matter.
Dr. Kara McGann:
Two issues arise in terms of the critical skills list. First, we are seeing a rapid expansion in certain sectors that would allow for skills to remain on the list for some time. For example, companies in the ICT sector are using the apprenticeship model but are still growing so rapidly that, as they worked out last year, even if every leaving certificate student did a computer science course, it would still not be enough to meet demand in four years' time. The demand outweighs what the system can produce. In some cases, skill needs cannot be met by the Irish population due to language issues. Companies need native speakers plus cloud computing skills or so on. Thus, languages remain on the critical skills list.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry for cutting across Dr. McGann, but last week I raised with the Department the issue of people with language skills who were already in Ireland. I know this from my own constituency. All they need is a small amount of training in the additional skills they would need, but no one seems to be considering this space. Instead, language skills are placed on the critical skills list and companies are not looking to people who may have an interest in some of these jobs, particularly in technology where they could get training in Ireland. No one seems to be examining the list or pushing to have it examined.
Dr. Kara McGann:
From our conversations with employers, they are considering all aspects and trying to be innovative in how they approach this issue, for example, through upskilling and reskilling programmes, including various Skillnet Ireland and Springboard programmes, to capture what is already in Ireland. Upskilling or reskilling someone in Ireland who has the native skills required would be much more convenient than going through a permit process. It would be great to see that happening, and many of our employers are looking at every case to encourage it.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did the figure of 46% of inspections detecting breaches of employment law shock Dr. McGann? It did not shock me. It is not a good statistic, but it did not surprise me. Did it surprise Dr. McGann?
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With respect, I believe it benefits the bottom lines of some employers. Will Mr. Berney comment, please?
Mr. Liam Berney:
Yesterday, I attended a webinar hosted by the Department of the Minister, Deputy Harris. The Department's name is too long to say. At the webinar, the Minister launched his Department's strategy statement for the next three years. A large emphasis was placed on reskilling and upskilling workers in the economy. There was a particular emphasis on apprenticeships and ensuring they could address the economy's skills needs. The statement included an ambitious target of increasing the number of apprenticeships. That is an initiative I hope will address some of the issues that the Deputy has referenced as well as some of the gaps in employers' workforces.
Those present may know that I am a member of the WRC's board. I imagine what Deputy O'Reilly has pointed out is merely the tip of the iceberg. In the early 2000s, an agreement was reached between ICTU and the Government to have 90 labour inspectors in the WRC. That figure has never been reached. Currently, the WRC has 47 inspectors. Imagine what would be uncovered if it had its full complement of inspectors. The Deputy's point is a valid one and there is a great deal of exploitation in some parts of the economy, although not in all. The statistic would be much more shocking if the WRC had its full complement of inspectors available to it to carry out this work. Perhaps this is an issue the committee can consider in its consideration of this legislation.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a very important issue which I hope the committee will consider. It is an area which we do not often get to shine a light on. I shudder to think of what happens to those workers when the spotlight goes off them and the inspectors pack their bags and go home. We have been told repeatedly that this is an issue because we are dealing with companies that operate with a low margin but when we are talking about meat processing, we are talking about companies such as the Goodman Group making €170 million profit in 2018 with assets of more than €3.45 billion. We are certainly talking about low pay; I am not convinced that we are talking about low margins because it does not seem to me that the profits are not being made. The push is on to increase the numbers here but it is clear that exploitation is rife in this sector. Every report that is conducted points to that. Mr. Berney, by way of his own experience, has advised us of that. We know if there were more inspectors, they would be uncovering more breaches which should give us pause for thought.
I want to reflect for a moment on the submission from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, with regard to the timing of this. There is a huge amount of uncertainty for workers at the moment. When and how the economy will restart is somewhat unknowable. Do the representatives from IBEC have an opinion about the timing of this particular legislation and the call for alignment which in some respects might be welcomed, but it is never alignment when it comes to outlawing low-hour contracts, recognition for trade unions or the right to collective bargaining. If we are going to talk about alignment, would the representatives from IBEC be happy if we were to align on all fronts with the others and not just pick the minimum or race down to the bottom but that we would actually have the type of alignment that would also benefit workers?
Dr. Kara McGann:
On the timing of the legislation, we are conscious of the current conditions and are also preparing for a post-pandemic labour market, given that the legislation is for the long term. Even with the current conditions, we still see sectors with significant growth which are looking for skilled workers that are just not available here at this time. While the upskilling and reskilling programmes that Mr. Berney referred to are in place with a view to the long term, we are still seeing a need for workers and for employment permits to come through as well. It is part of a long-term plan, and being cognisant of the situation around labour market activation which we know employers will get behind, there is still a place for this. I will ask Ms Redmond to speak on alignment.
Ms Joanne Redmond:
On further alignment, all workers are entitled to be a member of a trade union. That is in place regardless of the status of their work permit. Where an employer recognises a trade union, they will be subject to any collective bargaining agreement in place. Where there is not a union, those workers will have the same engagement with the organisation as all other employees, Irish and European. IBEC is aware of the increasing desire for collectivism and is conscious of all stakeholders in all businesses, particularly employees. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have asked through the Labour Employer Economic Forum to review social dialogue and how that can be strengthened.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The witnesses say that these workers are the same and have the same entitlements but they clearly do not. They are given a work permit which has information in English on the back, directing them to a website with multilingual information. They are not the same and to pretend they are is doing them a grave disservice because it pretends that they do not need the additional supports which they absolutely do. Of course they have a right to join a trade union, and I would encourage every single person to do exactly that, because in the absence of a Government willing to legislate, it is a worker's best protection. However, it is unfair and disingenuous to claim that they are the same as other workers; they are clearly not.
Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Dr. McGann from IBEC and Mr. Berney from ICTU, for their contributions. Overall, the Bill will make a significant impact by allowing greater flexibility for employment permits and modernising the existing legislation. Pre-Covid, there was significant feedback from sectors including agriculture about how challenging it was for operators to fill certain positions. The introduction of seasonal work permits will go some way to addressing this.
I take ICTU's point about the uncertainty around what the economy will look like after Covid. However, my clear understanding is that in all countries which have seasonal work permits, including all our fellow EU member states, there has been a constant need for the permit regardless of the economy. The most stark example is probably in Greece. At the height of its crisis, despite extremely high levels of unemployment, evidence shows there was still a need for the seasonal work permit. I also appreciate ICTU's concerns around enforcement regarding any exploitation of the scheme and the terms and conditions for these workers. The Department has said workers on a seasonal work permit will have their entitlements upheld which is welcome. We need to ensure this is the case. If not, severe penalties should be put in place to deter the minority who may consider exploiting workers on such a scheme, including substantial financial penalties, and that any such exploitation will bar companies from future participation in the scheme. That would be vital.
I have two questions for Dr. McGann. She outlined valid concerns around the implementation of the 50:50 rule. Is there any obvious solution to that or is it simply a case that Revenue needs to adjust how it carries out its oversight role? Will Dr. McGann explain more about IBEC's proposal for Ireland to introduce a programme such as the lower skills occupations visa in Canada or the essential skills work visa in New Zealand? My knowledge is limited enough but friends have used the essential skills visa in New Zealand, and built up very successful careers and lives there and speak very highly of it. Will Dr. McGann outline what they offer that the general employment permit does not? Is IBEC aware of challenges or issues such programmes have presented in Canada or New Zealand?
Dr. Kara McGann:
The 50:50 rule seems to be down to the decision to use that particular identifier number. If a cluster identifier number was used instead, then the 50:50 rule as a group would overcome that particular challenge. What is happening is, say, a company which has four entities in Ireland and, for intellectual property reasons, one is grouped around certain stills, they can find that a particular need for those critical skills falls into one or other of the four entities.
Whereas as a group it is meeting the 50:50 needs completely, one entity may fall out of line. We are seeing that it is leading to the loss of jobs and substantial projects to other international jurisdictions. As it is a kind of technical administrative issue, it could totally be overcome by the use of a different identifier, such as a cluster identifier.
On the low-skills occupation visa in Canada and the essential skills work visa in New Zealand, the eligibility around particular visas is around a high-skills diploma or two years of specific training. People can stay in the country from six to 24 months, with all of this set by the state. As such, it would fill immediate labour shortage where gaps exist. The visas would define the duration, wages and the conditions for stay. What would be different to how we stand currently is that there are still roles on the ineligible lists because they do not meet the criteria around the general permits that would fit within this cohort of permits and allow that flexibility within the system. In particular, in the care sector, for example, there may be particular needs at a particular time not meeting the criteria but there may be grave demand for them. What we have heard is that in those countries they can lead a pathway to meeting needs locally and potentially transferring to others if there was a desire to keep them in the country. There is a capacity to do that if desired.
Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome our speakers. I know Dr. McGann, Mr. Berney and Ms Redmond and my first experience in politics was an industrial closure when Mr. Berney was representing the workers and it is great to see him here.
What is the evidence of what has happened during the Covid pandemic to people with work permits? Have we seen people with work permits returning? Will there be an expectation of many renewals coming up? We know that areas in the caring sector are under very severe pressure but what is happening in other areas of the economy where there is a higher density of low-skill, as opposed to high-skill, personnel? We know about the story in the high-skills sectors. As Mr. Berney indicates, there are concerns about high unemployment. We must also be fair to people who have expectations and so on and we must have a system that works.
A second point concerns apprenticeships and upskilling. To what extent do IBEC or ICTU have evidence that sectors which are big users of the permit scheme are running apprenticeships and have they stepped up their performance with such apprenticeships? What is the blockage? There is a CAO process for going to third level but there is no equivalent clearing house for people who want to opt into apprenticeships. Has either IBEC or ICTU thoughts on how to develop an easier way of getting in? Currently it is about getting individual employment contracts and it is very much who one knows. It can be tricky.
I take the point made about the meat industry and it seems there are problems. Equally, it would not be fair to pick one sector, looking at all the potential offences and say it represents all employers using these schemes. We should not visit on those who work in a legitimate way the failings of those who abuse the processes. I am interested in the comments of both ICTU and IBEC on something mentioned by the previous speaker; should there be a clearer way that if the mechanism is abused, it will be closed to a party for a certain period. Do we need to see some sort of quid pro quoin this regard?
Mr. Berney has said there are no legislative changes here for migrant workers. What is he suggesting? In general we have tended to say the same labour law applies to everybody. Should we be considering, for example, the referral of some of these matters to the Low Pay Commission, which has expertise on both sides of industry? It can look at some of these areas and potential failings in how law is either designed or executed.
Dr. Kara McGann:
I thank the Deputy for his questions. He asked about permits during Covid-19 and we have seen a real impact with the Department trying to be as engaged as it can with individuals on work permits and support them. We have seen changes to various parts of the process to try to push it out during the time to ensure people are looked after.
The Deputy asked about apprenticeships and upskilling and we are seeing much engagement on this. In the information and communications technology sector, for example, there is an apprenticeship model that is being used and we have seen others engage in the apprenticeship model. As the Deputy says, it can be challenging. In the past there has been a perception of third level versus apprenticeships and we really need to change that perception. In some cases it is with the parents of Ireland and broadening our understanding of further and higher education, including the opportunities offered by apprenticeships to earn and learn in a way that is very attractive. People can look at the opportunities this offers but there is a perception issue we must address. It is work we are absolutely engaging in at this time.
There was also a question on abuses in the area and there are fines, court appearances and engagement with the Workplace Relations Commission. Employers are precluded from the permit system for five years if found in breach of the process.
Mr. Liam Berney:
That incident in Tallaght referred to by Deputy Bruton was a long time ago and it shows how none of us is getting any younger.
The current position is very difficult for migrant workers, particularly as the height of the pandemic occurred at times of the year like Christmas. I do not have any sense that there has been a massive reduction in the number of migrant numbers in the economy during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is in fact self-evident that if we did not have the migrant workers in the health service, we would have been in much deeper trouble. The migrant workers in the health service by and large work for the HSE and get the same treatment, and terms and conditions of employment. I could not absolutely say the same for the private healthcare institutions such as private nursing homes etc. Establishing a joint labour committee for migrant workers in private nursing homes would improve their position.
It would make a significant difference. I know a report was done on the private nursing home sector recently which recommended that very thing. That report directed that activity towards the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to look at. Again, that is perhaps something the committee could consider.
The number of apprenticeships in Ireland is increasing but from a very low level. Colleagues from IBEC and Deputy Bruton have pointed to some of the barriers to apprenticeships, one of which is that in the first year, certainly of the traditional craft apprenticeships, a person must first find a sponsoring employer. Sometimes, if a person cannot find a sponsoring employer, the apprenticeship is closed off to him or her. Perhaps a structural change whereby apprentices spend the first eight or nine months of their training in the training college, as opposed to having to find an apprentice sponsor, might be a way of making a significant difference to the number of apprenticeships.
The State and public sector employers have a very important role to play here because predominantly, apprentices are hired by private sector employers. If the State were to up its game in terms of making apprenticeships available to young people and also adult learners, I believe that would make a significant difference.
On the question of asking the Low Pay Commission for its views on the treatment of migrant workers, the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, might be a better place to start. Ask it to give the committee a view as to its experience with carrying out inspections in places where migrant workers are employed to actually see what their experience is.
As I said in a previous contribution, I am on the board. We do not get the full range of information, however. I cannot, therefore, really comment in any great detail except to say there is a problem with exploitation in some parts of the economy. To be clear with everybody here, from an ICTU perspective, migrant workers are not the problem. The problem is the treatment migrant workers get when they arrive here. Unfortunately, they fall into the hands of some terrible, unscrupulous employers. That is the difficulty. If we could be guaranteed that a migrant worker coming here would have the exact same treatment as any other worker in the economy, then perhaps this kind of discussion would not be necessary. Unfortunately, however, that is not the lived experience of all migrant workers.
I hope that deals with the questions asked by Deputy Bruton.
Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Berney. I have two quick follow-up questions. The perception of apprenticeships is largely dictated by the opportunities that exist. It is not that the mammies of Ireland do not want people to be in a skilled work force or skilled trades or whatever. It is the lack of opportunities. It is a person not having a CAO place or, as Mr. Berney said, needing an individual sponsor. I absolutely agree with him. We need to see the State in there as a player and as an employer, not just as provider of the skills. We need to see IBEC putting the screws on its members, who want work permit schemes and so on, to become big players in the apprenticeship world. Even in the areas where new apprenticeships in the new economy have come forward, the take-up by employers is lamentably low.
Has the five-year exclusion rule been used much? Do we see rogue employers taken out under that scheme? Can the WRC trigger it from its work?
Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would IBEC care to comment on whether it could drive an apprenticeship? IBEC said its member companies will commit to the present level of apprenticeships trebling over the next four years or whatever.
Dr. Kara McGann:
IBEC is very much supportive of the apprenticeship model and the Generation Apprenticeship campaign. The incentive to engage in this whole area of apprenticeships is something we are constantly seeking to drive with employers. That is, therefore, very much part of our agenda and something we are very much behind.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Bruton still has time left if he wants.
Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am finished
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The next person who indicated is Senator Garvey. She has seven minutes.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This has been very informative. I thank the witnesses for coming in. It is good to hear from different perspectives. I will make a couple of comments and ask a couple of questions.
First, I have spoken to the head of Limerick and Clare Education and Training Board, ETB, and to guidance counsellors about apprenticeships. One of the issues seems to be that apprenticeships often start in January. I also raised this in the Seanad. It is hard for a young person leaving school in June to twiddle his or her thumbs until the following January when most of his or her equals are going to have a laugh for the summer and then go to college in September. We really need to look at that.
It is prohibitive that a person must be on social welfare for at least six months before he or she can take up many of these apprenticeships. We really need to change that. Why tell people to stay on social welfare for six months to take up an apprenticeship? Why is starting in January so common among apprenticeships? I would really like to hear some information on that one simple issue. Can we change that in some way? I know from speaking with many of my guidance counsellor friends who work in secondary schools that when their students seek to take up apprenticeships, in many cases they must wait until January. I would like information on that. In addition, it would perhaps save the State money if we are not asking them all to go on the dole for six months. The sooner they get stuck into something else, the better it is for them. It is never good for anybody to stay on social welfare if he or she does not want to do so.
I will raise a couple of other issues. I know from talking to the heads of the local enterprise offices, LEOs, that when they carry out training, it is uncertified. That means they are upskilling many of the small employees but not similarly qualifying them. A huge issue in the SME sector, which accounts for a big portion of our employees and employers, is that when they carry out training, it is not certified. I know from teaching in the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC, and Further Education and Training Awards Council, FETAC, that it is not that hard to reach the specific learning outcomes for modules to get certification in education.
I would love to see the LEOs working with the education and training board, ETB, and IBEC perhaps getting involved in some way to encourage that by looking at the apprenticeships and skills needed and seeing how they can fit into some kind of FETAC level 5, 6, 7 or 8 module, depending on what skills they are bringing to it.
Where are the 90 WRC inspectors? What we are doing about getting more of them. Everybody here wants every employee and employer to be treated well. Therefore, if we do not have enough WRC inspectors, can we as a committee ask when we are getting the rest of them? If we only have 47 inspectors out of 90, what is the plan for getting a few more? What happens with those inspections? What is the follow-up?
I have been a migrant worker. I emigrated to America and Germany in my time and encountered language barrier and bad payment issues. Luckily, an Irish lad, who is now actually a millionaire, set up a support company for getting tax back for people. At the time, we could go to him and he could stand up for us. It is, however, very hard for a young migrant to be empowered to stand up for himself or herself. Therefore, the thought of meat factory workers getting mistreated is terrible. The meat factory workers and their employers, who are in the minority, are not the benchmark we should be working off for the employers or employees. It is one small section of the whole issue around workers' rights.
It is great that the Government has agreed to 10,000 apprenticeships overall. The will is there from Government; we now need to figure out the "how" of it all. At least the will is there, which is great; 10,000 per year is a good figure to aim towards. We now need to figure out how to do it. I know the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Gorman, are working on the direct provision centre issue. It occurs to me that we have more than 5,000 asylum seekers.
Many of them are extremely well qualified. If we are stuck for qualified people in the workforce, let us see what we can do about speeding up the process relating to asylum seekers. It would be madness to bring people in from other countries if we already have them in our direct provision centres. I think the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Gorman, might finally be beginning to bring about an end to all that madness. One meets doctors, labourers, brain surgeons and carpenters in direct provision centres, so that is something to consider.
The twice-yearly skills needs assessment is brilliant. It will be interesting to see where the gaps exist. They should maybe become part of the committee's focus. If there are glaringly obvious skill shortages in certain areas, based on that twice-yearly assessment, let us find out what they are and what we can do about shifting it.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Senator has two minutes left so if she wants a response from IBEC or ICTU, she might ask now.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The final question was about IBEC and ICTU working with ETBs. The figure of 10,000 for apprenticeships is an aim and we just have to figure out how to get there. I thank the witnesses for their time.
Dr. Kara McGann:
I might ask my colleague, Ms Redmond, to address the matter relating to the WRC in a moment. Reform in the area of apprenticeships would be welcome. It is something to encourage. I have colleagues in IBEC who work in this area with a view to engaging further and increasing the number of employers coming into the area. We have looked at it with our Reboot and Reimagine campaign with regard to Generation Apprenticeship and the focus on that as a clear and active option both for activation and for skills generally.
Uncertified training and upskilling are important. Micro-credentials which we can build on, leading to bigger awards, are important. We need to make that as user-friendly as possible so that we can see greater uptake and engagement because as the Senator says, it is possible to create a learning pathway, so we should increase that, especially when we have an ethos of lifelong learning to keep ourselves competitive. It seems nonsensical not to address that to encourage and grow the level of qualification that people are gaining when upskilling.
On asylum seekers in direct provision, IBEC has a long history of diversity and inclusion work. We would like to see greater access. Where there is access to work, I understand that there are difficulties with bank accounts, driving licences and so on. We need to look at that system to see how we can tap in to often very talented people in the direct provision system and how we can connect that better. We welcome the work in that area and look to support it in future. I ask Ms Redmond to comment on the WRC.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am afraid Senator Garvey's time is up.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for joining us and for making their submissions. I have three questions and one comment, which are directed primarily to Dr. McGann and Ms Redmond. There can be no doubting the labour demand in the sectors that the witnesses have identified, including care, manufacturing and agrifood, over the coming years. I want to focus on care. In the witnesses' submission, there is a depiction of care as low-skilled labour. It is important to acknowledge at this committee that there has been a significant push in recent years to professionalise care, especially by SIPTU with regard to healthcare assistants, and all those coming into that role would have FETAC level 5 qualifications.
In the context of the lower-skilled occupations visa used in Canada and the essential skills work visa in New Zealand to which our guests refer, the only requirements are effectively the equivalent of the leaving certificate or two years' specific experience. What is IBEC's attitude or position with regard to the professionalisation of care and those working in the care sector? Does IBEC believe that it is acceptable to have people working in the sector with skills below the level currently required of those coming in as healthcare assistants in what it is proposing here?
Dr. Kara McGann:
Professionalisation is important. We previously saw that in the childcare sector. It is welcome to see it in the care sector. We need to see that grandfathering approach where there are people in the sector who will upskill to ensure that we achieve professionalisation. This is a growing area that we will have a greater need for if we are to achieve the objectives of keeping people in their homes for longer and accessing the type of care that they wish to have as individuals, whether with long-term care needs or general ageing needs in view of the fact that we have an ageing population. We would be supportive of professionalisation.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Dr. McGann saying that in order to enter healthcare assistant roles, workers should have a lower skills requirement than is currently the case? I appreciate what she is saying about grandfathering and that people already in the sector should be skilled up. We are talking about the entry of workers from outside the European Union into employment in Ireland. Should there be a skills requirement for them to come into the care sector or not?
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Depicting it as low-skilled may not be helpful when talking about the skills need and employment need in the care sector. On my second question, I thank Dr. McGann for the detailed document which complemented today's presentation. She talks about a competition between the construction industry and the manufacturing and food processing industries for workers. Will she go into more detail about what she means by that? As we understand it, those coming into the construction sector would have a set of skills acquired in their own country and they would have to meet a specific standard coming into construction in Ireland. Will Dr. McGann talk about how she sees the competition where people are drawn away from manufacturing and food processing and into construction?
Dr. Kara McGann:
This was not referring to people coming in on permits to the construction sector as opposed to manufacturing as much as it was to indigenous workers or workers already in Ireland who are attracted out of manufacturing and into construction, given that manufacturing, as an industry with lower margins, cannot compete with the rates of pay available in construction. We saw it happen prior to the last recession whereby workers were drawn into the construction industry.
Those indigenous businesses were not all still there after the crash and, as a result, workers were no longer in the construction sector. We have to learn from what has happened in the past and look at how to address those issues, going forward, with the expectation that there is going to be pent-up demand for both domestic and commercial construction when restrictions are lifted.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Concern about the cost of housing in the country is shared across parties and by our guests from IBEC and the Irish Congress for Trade Unions. Our guests talked about allowing more third country workers to come to Ireland and take up employment, particularly in the low-margin industries, which I take to mean jobs in which workers earn the minimum wage or barely above it. Do our guests have any comments to make about the challenge of housing those workers? How will they find affordable housing in the context of the high cost of housing in the country?
Dr. Kara McGann:
Housing absolutely is a particular challenge in this country. Addressing those concerns has been built into the system, in particular for people coming into the country with certain permits. If we take, for example, the pilot system with the meat industry, one of the conditions of the relevant permit was that assistance would be given to workers in sourcing accommodation. Housing is an ongoing issue that needs to be examined.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Should that condition be extended to all the other permit schemes about which Dr. McGann is talking and proposing should be introduced?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank our guests for their presentations. To make a general remark, this conversation has reinforced concerns I expressed at the most recent meeting a couple of weeks ago relating to the problems with the current heads of the Bill, the diminution of democratic oversight and public scrutiny by moving this issue to be dealt with by ministerial order. We are not dealing with the issue of a second tier of guest workers with employment permits tied to the employer.
I will direct a question to Dr. McGann. IBEC's position is that this Bill does not go far enough and that a model such as the lower skilled occupations visa used in Canada or the essential skills work visa in New Zealand should, effectively, be used here. The argument given for that approach, as Dr. McGann said in her opening statement, is that "shortages among lower-skilled workers and subsequent pressure on wages have the potential to be as harmful to the Irish economy as a shortage of skilled labour". Is it fair to summarise IBEC's position as wanting to have this new form of permits to bring in supposedly low-skilled workers and keep wages in large parts of the economy low because it is worried that wages may rise?
Dr. Kara McGann:
I do not think that is a correct summary of the position. We are talking about different sectors of the economy, some of which are low-margin and highly competitive sectors. Those sectors are competing at European and international levels while accommodating a minimum wage that is the second highest in Europe. If we adjust the minimum wage according to purchasing power standards, Ireland is ranked sixth in the European ratings. For those industries to remain competitive, to be able to meet existing business needs and grow, given the demands of Brexit and so on and the challenges of Covid-19, the proposal is that something like the types of permits in Canada or New Zealand could offer an opportunity here.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not really understand why Dr. McGann disagreed with my summary, with all due respect. Dr. McGann said that "shortages among lower-skilled workers and subsequent pressure on wages have the potential to be as harmful to the Irish economy as a shortage of skilled labour". The logic of IBEC's position is that it wants to be able to keep wages low, although it may not describe those wages as such. It does not want wages to rise and that is the reason for its proposals in these areas. Is that not a fair summary of IBEC's position?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What are those industries not in a position to do?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the reason that Dr. McGann wants these new permits to come in to stop wages rising?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Most people would agree that the workers in these sectors have proven to be essential during the pandemic. We know the very low wages that exist in at least some parts of the agricultural industry. Is IBEC in favour of mechanisms to stop wages increasing in the care work and manufacturing sectors, despite the work of those front-line workers in the pandemic, because the employers cannot afford it?
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could Dr. McGann put it in her own words, in that case? What does she want to happen to the wages of what she calls low-skilled workers in the agricultural, care and manufacturing industries? Is she in favour of wages increasing or is she in favour of the mechanism that IBEC is proposing to try to keep those wages from increasing?
Dr. Kara McGann:
We are talking about employment permits. We are trying to look at meeting skills and labour needs for the sectors that we have in this country. If we are talking about pay mechanisms, etc., we have a Low Pay Commission and work is in train for that to be turned into a living wage commission. I am afraid that the Deputy and I are not talking about the same thing.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think it was clear from her presentation that Dr. McGann is talking about using these mechanisms as a means of keeping wages low. It is fair enough if she does not accept that. People can listen to what she has said and read the transcript.
I will address a question to Mr. Berney. One thing that struck me in looking over the heads of the Bill was that the penalties for employers breaching the rules seem relatively low. The penalties for employers not having an employment permit, for example, are a fine of €3,000 on summary conviction and a fine not exceeding €250,000 on indictment. That is the same amount of money as was the case in the 2003 Act, despite 18 years of inflation. Similarly, the fines for major fraud, forgery, etc., are also relatively low and the maximum fine is €50,000. Circumstances could arise where a company such as Gama Construction could be involved in substantial abuse of the scheme and only face a maximum fine of €50,000.
Is that something ICTU has looked at?
Mr. Liam Berney:
Our view is that it is not particularly appropriate to change this legislation as things currently stand. However, if there is a proposal to move the legislation, certainly we would be interested in the areas of fines and what employers would face if they were found to be in breach of the conditions applying to work permits.
A common methodology used is three strikes and one is out, that is, an employer is sanctioned after three offences. If an employer commits an offence in this area once, it should be precluded from having access to work permit schemes because it is just unacceptable. That would dissuade employers from abusing people, providing, of course, they can be caught. That comes back to the question of the availability of workplace inspectors and the Workplace Relations Commission.
I was encouraged to hear some committee members talking about making use of the power of the committee to ensure the correct number of inspectors are deployed to the Workplace Relations Commission.
Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Two weeks ago, we heard that there are only 45 inspectors who are obviously dealing with a whole range of matters, not just the question of migrant workers. In ICTU's opinion, is 45 sufficient for the amount of work to be done?
Mr. Liam Berney:
As part of the negotiations for Towards 2016, a social partnership agreement which ended in 2008, there was an agreement that the number of inspectors would increase to 90 at that particular point in time. That never happened, however. It would be instructive for the committee to ask the Workplace Relations Commission the appropriate number of inspectors. I think it would say in excess of 90.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank both groups.
I want to focus on the meat industry and what Dr. McGann's colleague, Ms Redmond, said, which is correct, that is, that everyone is entitled to be a member of a trade union. Unfortunately, in my experience when I worked on the front line in the meat sector for a number of years, if one told colleagues that one had joined a trade union or tried to organise colleagues in a trade union, one would be summarily fired. This happened not just once but several times consistently because that is what the meat industry does.
How can it be appropriate to offer work permits in a sector that treats workers so poorly and refuses to allow collective bargaining in large parts of it?
Dr. Kara McGann:
I am looking across the board at this. There are many strong employers as well in that same sector. Colleagues in Meat Industry Ireland are certainly looking at this whole area. Those places where there have been problems can also impact everybody else who is actually playing by the rules.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I take Dr. McGann's point on that. However, I want to focus on the meat industry. These are the work permits that pay just €22,000 a year. Everyone around this table would be on multiples of that salary. It is backbreaking work. There was a tremendous report done by the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, Working to the Bone, which showed in great detail the levels of exploitation in the sector.
Given the meat industry sector's anti-union, union-busting attitude, along with poor rates of pay, how can we possibly justify, now of all times with a 25% unemployment rate, issuing work permits to that sector?
Dr. Kara McGann:
My understanding is that there are quotas for permits in that sector which come with specific conditions to make sure it is meeting some of these challenges. In the case of a knifeman, for example, there is a particular permit around training. With the general operative permits, it is around English language training and assistance, along with sourcing accommodation, if desired, and so on. Work is being done to address these issues.
It is a matter of striking a balance in terms of trying to look at what we need to put in place. It is also being supportive of inspections, announced or not, with the Health and Safety Authority and the Workplace Relations Commission.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I apologise for interrupting but I am short on time.
The difficulty with what Dr. McGann has said - to be fair it is not her fault - is that the inspections are not taking place. We know from the data we received this morning that there have been ten inspections per year for the past six years. In that small number of inspections, effectively one in two inspections found wrongdoing. Even the limited evidence from the Workplace Relations Commission shows there is a massive problem in this sector. How can one justify work permits for a sector that is clearly dysfunctional and clearly does not pay its workers enough? These are front-line workers. At the very least - hopefully Dr. McGann agrees with this question – is it not the case that these essential workers deserve a living wage?
Dr. Kara McGann:
The essential workers piece is very key. These are workers we need to have in our economy. In terms of the permits coming in, all of those are based on detailed evidence-based submissions. Otherwise, they would not be in a position to get those permits. That is absolutely key.
It is not a sector based on minimum wage. Many may come into the company on a minimum wage, the same as anybody else, but the opportunity to move to the next pay level is available after a period of months. It can also include bonuses, shift premiums and so on. This is what we are hearing from employers within the sector. I cannot talk across a whole sector because of where there have been breaches. It is a different part of the piece.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I appreciate it is a difficult sector for Dr. McGann to talk about, particularly given the facts. The MRCI declares that typically €10.85 an hour which matches the disgracefully low figure of €22,000. It goes up for the very skilled boners to €13.56, again an incredibly low rate of pay. As my colleague, Deputy Louise O'Reilly said, this is a hugely profitable sector. We are not talking about a low-margin sector. Meat factories made €170 million profit for the Goodman Group alone. We do not know the profits of other operators in the sector because they are private unlimited companies which have been offshored. How can Dr. McGann justify work permits in that situation? Is there not a far better solution that we just pay workers decent wages? God knows the meat sector can afford to pay them.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Dr. McGann characterising €170 million in profits last year for Goodman as low margin?
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is very different. Is it really a highly competitive sector?
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
How does that tally with the profits and €3.9 billion of exports from the meat sector? Seriously, it does not add up.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Wage thresholds are set internally in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. In other words, it is a closed internal process. Is there a better way of setting pay levels for these work permits?
Mr. Liam Berney:
A better approach would be to have sectorial wage-making mechanisms generally available in the economy, like joint labour committees. If there was a joint labour committee in the meat processing sector, it would involve wages being made through a process of negotiation between employers and unions.
Wage levels, once approved by the Labour Court and the Oireachtas, would become the minimum wages in the sector. The difficulty with the joint labour committee, JLC, system is that, as my colleagues in IBEC are aware, employers refused to attend or participate in them. The structure has collapsed because of that.
Colleagues from IBEC referenced the fact that they have suddenly seen the light and accepted that collectivism is the way forward. It is to be hoped that over the coming period in discussions in the labour economic forum, ideas around collectivism, increased collective bargaining coverage and sectoral wage-making mechanisms like JLCs can become more common and employers will stop refusing to participate in them. That could raise wage levels in the sectors we are discussing.
Migrant workers who come here because their minimum rates of pay are legally enforceable will be entitled to those rates. Crucially, they will only be entitled to them if employers know that if they do not pay them, they will be caught not doing so. Increasing the number of inspectors in the WRC is crucial to all of this, as is including increasing collective bargaining coverage and making it easier for trade unions to do their work. This is an important suite of measures that need to be adopted.
All of these problems can be resolved but there needs to be a change in approach in the employer class.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have talked a lot about meat factory employees and employers. It is an important issue. The witnesses before the committee today are not here to represent meat factory workers and employers. Perhaps, if the issue is so important to some people in the committee, we need to bring their representatives in separately because it feels somewhat unfair that IBEC is being required to defend what they are doing at this time. I do not know if that is what its role is. It is an important issue to me but I am not sure if that is the purpose of today's meeting. IBEC covers many different strands. It is good that the issue has been raised. Perhaps we need to examine the issue as a committee and bring other people in specifically to discuss those issues. While there may be a small cohort of people who are mistreating workers in some ways, trying to sort it out today with IBEC is not going to happen.
What is the issue? I want to solve problems instead of just talking about them. What is stopping builders, tradesmen and employers in general from taking on apprentices if there is a shortage? Is the issue insurance? Are they not getting enough guidance? What can we do to increase the numbers? We want 10,000 apprenticeships. Why are there are grey sites? What is stopping builders and tradesmen from taking apprentices on? We need to examine the delay and what we can do. Do we need to provide an incentive? Does the Government need to get involved to say that employers will not be liable for apprenticeships? I am sure most builders have on-site insurance, for example. What is the problem? What can we do to solve it? I would like to discuss how we get to 10,000 apprenticeships. I would love to hear the witnesses' input on that.
Mr. Liam Berney:
I can offer observations. There is ongoing public consultation around the apprenticeship action plan from 2020 to 2025. All of the questions the Senator has asked are being addressed in that. The consultation is not closed and the action plan has not been published. Perhaps it would be useful for her to express her concerns to her colleague, the Minister, Deputy Harris, who is developing the action plan. In our submission to the Departments on their action plan, we raised some of the same questions the Senator has mentioned.
She referred to construction. It is a complex sector. There are a couple of things that are important to say about construction. First, construction is one area where there are advanced systems of social dialogue, collective bargaining and all of the rest of that. That has resulted in sectoral wage making mechanisms in construction in order that people are properly paid and so on. I do not want people to have the impression, however, that construction is perfect because it is far from it. A large proportion of workers in construction are classified as being self-employed when they are actually employees. It is a disincentive for people to work in construction because there is a growing practice of misclassification of workers in the sector.
My colleagues from IBEC are very reluctant to get into this area because they do not represent construction employers in general. The Construction Industry Federation is the representative body. The problem with apprenticeships at the moment is that there are structural barriers in their way. One thing that would make a world of difference tomorrow would be for new apprentices to do the first eight months of their apprenticeships in training colleges, as opposed to getting have to get employers to sponsor them. They could use that time to get the support of State agencies to find an employer or the State itself could take them on. There are things that can be done to make apprenticeships more attractive.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Berney said that, but there is no point in apprentices doing eight months in college if we do not have tradesmen to take them on. What is stopping tradesmen from taking on apprentices? I do not know if it is because people are being classified as self-employed or unemployed.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know lots of tradesmen who take people on as employees and do not classify them as self-employed. I am not sure being classified as self-employed is the issue. Any tradesmen I know take people on as employees, rather than classifying them as self-employed.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was a reference to tradesmen.
Mr. Liam Berney:
In case I am not making the point very well, I want to be clear that the construction sector has problems. It may not be as attractive to young people as the Senator might like because there is a problem in the sector whereby people are misclassified as self-employed when they should be employees.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are they being misclassified by builders? Who is misclassifying them?
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
No, it is okay. I will look into it. I will talk to my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Harris, as Mr. Berney suggested. I have never met the man.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I want to do more on apprenticeships for tradesmen. I should have been told to marry a tradesman. They are the heroes, together with the front-line workers. They were underrated but are valued much more now. There is a shortage of them; they are like gold. We need to value them. I will follow up with Mr. Berney. What do Dr. McGann and Ms Redmond think about the gap in the incentive? How will we get to the target of 10,000?
Dr. Kara McGann:
Every day is a school day. I had not heard the term "greying sector" before. In terms of other sectors and apprenticeships generally, we are looking for increased investment in a generation of apprentices to encourage enterprise engagement, reduce on-the-job training costs and examine strategic innovation in that space. We have a number of apprenticeships connected to sectors we work with, such as pharmaceutical, financial services and so on. It is a case of trying to encourage uptake in those sectors. It is something of which we are very aware and we need to keep the encouragement going. Sometimes I think it is about awareness raising. If we have not done something before we need to learn what is involved and how we go about it. Greater awareness is being raised in those areas.
A figure of 10,000 is a significant number to get to. We need to see it. It is a vital part of the infrastructure of how we work and a way of connecting education and skills to the labour market.
It is really important that we see that. It is an area we are very aware of and are pushing on.
Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is hard, even for small employers, when they take on somebody as an apprentice who is not necessarily skilled and takes time to train up. Maybe something can be done with tax relief or some kind of assistance for smaller businesses.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Senator Garvey is over time. I call Senator Sherlock who has seven minutes.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I asked questions earlier, but I will follow up. A number of statements were made on the rationale for the appeal to extend the employment permits system, which has been made on the basis of low-margin sectors, the need to maintain competitiveness and, by extension, low wages within particular sectors. We need to see more evidence from IBEC on this. I note, in particular, the reliance on the CSO regarding the claim that the red meat sector is a low-margin sector. I am looking at the CSO and the NACE Rev. 2 classification and I am highly dubious that the red meat sector can be pulled out from the CSO data currently available, both privately and publicly.
I am aware that some of the Dr. McGann's colleagues in IBEC have a strong tradition of proper use of statistics, and data, from the CSO. We are at risk of misleading the committee by repeatedly saying that red meat sector is a low-margin sector because know the red meat sector is one defined by a small number of very large operators. It is akin to an oligopoly and there are, as said previously, very significant profits in that sector. I would like IBEC to come back and provide more evidence as to the low-margin nature of the sectors it has spoken about.
Much has been said about the enforcement regime and the clear need both for additional inspectors in the labour inspectorate and to up the game on enforcement. A clear message has to go out from the committee, and, indeed, to IBEC, that if we want a more permissive permit system then we need to have very strong confidence in the enforcement system. That confidence does not exist at the moment. It is incumbent on IBEC, if it wants a more permissive permit system, which I do not believe in, to ensure there is a stronger enforcement system and a stronger degree of confidence that misdemeanours will be picked up.
There is a necessary conversation to be had on fines, deterrents and one strike and people should be out. Mr. Berney referred earlier to three misdemeanours followed by more serious consequences. I do not believe that is acceptable. It is incumbent, particularly on the largest employers' representative group in the country, to very much add its voice to the need for stronger enforcement. We can then have the conversation about a more permissive permit system, but I do not think the permit system can come before the enforcement.
Mr. Liam Berney:
I agree with the Senator's comments. Congress recently published a report on the meat processing sector, which deals with some of these issues. I can make it available to members of the committee if they do not have it. It highlights some of the practices in the meat sector, which, unfortunately, are not great. Senator Garvey talked about meat processing being singled out at this meeting. Meat processing is not the only sector where there are problems; there are particular problems in agriculture and horticulture.
There are significant problems for people who come to this country on work permits. The issue around the short-term work permit is hugely problematic for colleagues in Congress. It would be, in our view, systematically abused because if somebody comes here on a work permit for two months and they find out after three weeks they are being paid less than the minimum wage, it will take them at least six to eight weeks to have that processed through the WRC. By that time, they will have gone back to their home country. Why would an employer not do that, if it was minded to? The points made by Senators Sherlock and Gavan and Deputies O'Reilly and Bruton on the importance of enforcement are a very significant message that should come out of this meeting.
Dr. Kara McGann:
We echo the importance of enforcement of the conditions and rules around permits. We also have to remember that the vast majority of employers are going into this in good faith and are treating their employees correctly. Tarring everybody with the same brush is not useful in this particular conversation. Many employers are looking to increase the number of employees they are taking from Ireland and the EEA before they go into the permit system at all but also to adhere to all the principles set within it. From an enforcement perspective that makes sense, but we cannot tar everybody with the same brush.
Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There is no attempt to tar whole sectors with the one brush, but there are many stories and reports of exploitation within certain sectors and by certain companies. To level the playing field for good employers, I make a particular appeal to IBEC to throw its weight behind ensuring there is a much more robust and better functioning enforcement system.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Senator Sherlock, but her time is up. I call Deputy O'Reilly, who has seven minutes.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will follow up on points made previously. We know there is exploitation going on, whether it is a majority or minority of employers. I suspect it is a minority, but I imagine for those workers to whom it is happening, it is not of massive interest whether it is happening to many other workers because it is happening to them. There are serious issues. This has been a useful meeting because it is clear the introduction of a seasonal employment permit, as described, will only serve to exacerbate the situation. We, therefore, need more enforcement, more personnel to do that enforcement and more employers to come on board, because clearly some are not. Let us be frank: the workers are not exploiting themselves.
I am interested in the views of the IBEC representatives on mechanisms that exist such as a joint labour committee, JLC. That is proposed for one of the sectors. We have highlighted four: meat processing, horticulture, agriculture and the delivery of private healthcare. Regarding those sectors and the need to improve the situation of workers in them, there is work to be done.
It would be appropriate to pause this legislation until the requisite number of inspectors have been appointed and the JLC for the care sector has been established. Is there an urgent need for this legislation to go through now in the middle of a global pandemic? With respect, this has not been addressed by any of the witnesses before the committee. It seems as if people are thinking, "Let's not waste a good crisis." The landscape of the labour market will have changed when we get to the end of this, if we ever get to the end of it. Do the witnesses share the view that now might not be the best time for this legislation given that much other work needs to be done?
Nobody at this meeting has an interest in doing anything other than protecting these workers. I know that the representatives from IBEC did not come here today to do the bidding of rogue employers. I also know that it wants the workers to be treated decently. We know they are not being treated decently and there is no point in us pretending that they are. We know they are not and we have seen the evidence. In the absence of mechanisms being in place, would it be a good idea to pause what we are doing now and put the necessary mechanisms in place for those workers to ensure their terms and conditions can be protected? I am talking about basic stuff such as using language that people can understand on the employment permit outlining where they can go to access information about their minimum rights and entitlements. Those basic things need to be done first.
Clearly, there is bigger stuff involved, including in the context of the JLC. Employers can repeatedly offend and can repeatedly abuse them. There is nothing to stop them simply moving on to the next worker when they get caught out. Many protections need to be put in place before we consider expanding a scheme like this which, I think we have established, is open to wholesale abuse. I do not suggest that the witnesses have come in here to represent the employers that abuse it. However, it would be silly to say they do not abuse it when they do. We need to have mechanisms in place to protect those workers before we push ahead.
Ms Joanne Redmond:
We already have a number of protections in place. No one would disagree that the enforcement mechanisms need to be beefed up. Mr. Berney may know more on this, but I understand that the WRC is currently recruiting for several roles, including in the inspection division. I do not know if it will go from 47 to 90 which is where it needs to go but it is certainly recruiting at the moment. The use of a JLC is one mechanism. I am sure we are all aware of the potential challenges over sectoral employment orders in the Supreme Court at the moment, but that is obviously one mechanism. I do not think it is a one-size-fits-all fix because as we have discussed already today many sectors are at play and many roles are unique. I do not know that it is one-size-fits-all or quick fix, but it is certainly one mechanism.
In the absence of that, the State has set remuneration rates, as I understand it, in consultation with economic migration interdepartmental group and the Low Pay Commission. It is fair to say that several protections are already in place. I think there is consensus that the enforcement mechanism needs to be improved.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will come to Mr. Berney for his view in a moment. I do not think it is fair to say that protections are in place based on what the figures from the Department regarding one sector suggest. We know that people are making out like bandits in this one sector with the money they are earning. Nearly 50% have detected breaches of employment law. It is not as if everybody is having their rights protected but it would be nice if they had a little bit of enhancement. It has been established that the minimum rights of workers in this sector are not being respected.
It is operating with half the personnel necessary. That level of personnel was deemed necessary. Mr. Berney reminded me of the days when I used to have to work for a living back in 2006 when Towards 2016 was negotiated. We had a very different labour landscape in 2006 from the one we are in now. One could argue that the 90 that were needed in 2006 could stand to be doubled or more and it would be useful for us to have that conversation with the WRC.
I do not think we can say that workers' rights are being upheld because they are clearly not. In a fractured situation that is not working for workers and in a labour market that is not delivering for them, bringing in more workers and expanding a group that we suspect is being exploited is probably not a very good idea now. I ask Mr. Berney to give his view on that.
Mr. Liam Berney:
I agree. I do not think it is the appropriate time to proceed with this legislation. It would be more responsible to wait until we see the state of the labour market when we emerge from the pandemic. I shuddered when Deputy O'Reilly made her comment to the effect of if we ever get to the end of this thing. I certainly hope we do sooner rather than later.
I know I am repeating the point. Equipping the WRC to do its job properly is crucial to this. I tend to agree with the Deputy that 90 is probably insufficient for the current labour market. The numbers in employment have increased exponentially. Even leaving the pandemic aside, the numbers in employment have increased exponentially since that figure of 90 was fixed upon. It would be useful and informative for the committee to invite representatives of the WRC to appear before it. I am sure Mr. Liam Kelly and his colleagues in the WRC would be happy to appear before the committee to give their view on that question.
Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Unfortunately, we need to end the meeting now because we have run out of time. With Covid restrictions, the committee cannot continue for more than two hours. This concludes our consideration of the matter today. I think Dr. McGann and Ms Redmond from IBEC and Mr. Berney from ICTU for assisting the committee. The committee will give further consideration to the matter. Many issues have been raised today. We probably need to look at the matter a bit more.
I hope that the next meeting of the committee will take place on Tuesday, 26 March, but that is to be confirmed. Covid restrictions do not allow us to know exactly when our committee meetings will take place. I thank members for their participation and for meeting in such exceptional circumstances.