Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members for participating in today's meeting in line with the exceptional measures we have to take due the Covid-19 pandemic, and I appreciate everybody's help in this situation. Members are required to participate at this meeting remotely and from within the Leinster House complex only. Members will be well aware of that. Apologies have been received from Deputies O'Reilly and Bruton.

Today's two opening statements have been circulated to the members. The first item on today's agenda is the sectoral employment order, SEO, for the electrical contracting sector. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 introduced a mechanism for sectoral wage setting, known as sectoral employment orders. This wage-setting mechanism is employed across economic sectors and replaced the previous system known as the registered employment agreement, REA. The intention of the legislative framework governing the SEO is to establish minimum rates of pay, sick leave provisions and pension provisions for a particular sector. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has received the draft SEO for the electrical contracting sector and has laid it before the Houses of the Oireachtas for confirmation. Both the Dáil and the Seanad have referred this to our committee for consideration. To assist the committee in considering the sectoral employment order, I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Damien English, to our meeting.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege in the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make 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. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice 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 in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I now invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement regarding the proposed sectoral employment order for the electrical contracting sector.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for having us today. At the outset, I want to apologise. As we informed the Chair and the clerk to the committee, due to the Dáil scheduling I have to be in the Dáil Chamber at 10 a.m. for a debate and, therefore, I am afraid that I can only stay until about 9.55 a.m. I am sorry that I will miss the discussion on the general scheme of the redundancy payments (amendment) Bill 2021 because it is an important Bill. Our officials will take members through all of that today. I apologise that I cannot be there. It was the intention to be there for that discussion with committee members. I am happy to engage with them after the committee meeting on any individual piece if need be. The officials will present it and go through it in great detail. It is a worthy item of legislation.

On the sectoral employment order (electrical contracting sector) 2021, I am pleased to present a draft sectoral employment order for the electrical contracting sector. The draft order before the committee contains proposals from the Labour Court to introduce new minimum sectoral rates of pay, pension and sick pay entitlements, a dispute resolution process etc. for electricians and apprentices in the electrical contracting sector. This order, if approved, is to be treated as the first SEO for this economic sector. Before I introduce a specific draft order, I normally say something about the statutory process. It is important that I talk the members through that briefly. I am conscious that some members had a recent discussion with my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, a number of weeks ago, but it is important that I go through the process so that everyone knows what role we have in this.

A sectoral employment order is a statutory minimum wage-setting mechanism in a given economic sector. Essentially, a SEO is a unique collective bargaining mechanism which, once the statutory thresholds have been met, gives the Labour Court as a neutral decision maker the power to examine an application for a SEO in a given economic sector. As part of this examination, the Labour Court must explore all the policy considerations set out in the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 by affording all interested parties an opportunity to engage with the proposals and have an opportunity to be heard. Fundamentally, it is the Labour Court that determines whether a recommendation ought to be made and what the terms of said recommendation ought to be.

Once the Labour Court has completed this statutory process as set out in the Act of 2015, it has the power to make a recommendation for a SEO to me or the Minister of the day. This recommendation must be accompanied by a report that sets out the process and matters which the Labour Court considered in reaching its recommendation. The purpose of this report is to assist the Minister, and the committee, in satisfying me, him or her that the Labour Court has complied with its statutory functions as required by the Act.

The role of the Minister - in this case it is me today - in this process is extremely limited in terms of my decision to recommend that all the procedures are followed to the letter of the law. Pursuant to the Act of 2015, the Minister has the power to either accept or reject the recommendation as presented. In this regard, the Minister is compelled to accept the recommendation if he or she agrees, based on the statutory report which the Labour Court has prepared, that the court has complied with the statutory process. If the Minister is not satisfied that the Labour Court has complied with its duties as set out in the Act, he or she must return the proposal to the court setting out his or her reasons for not accepting the recommendation. The Minister does not have any power to engage with the substantive recommendation itself. It is only about the process and that it aligns with the legislation.

The Act of 2015 also sets out that the Houses of the Oireachtas may only accept or reject the draft order as it is.

The Act does not permit any alterations or amendments from the committee to the draft order. If the Houses do accept the recommendation, I will sign a statutory instrument giving effect to this decision.Should the Houses reject or fail to approve the draft order, the proposal for the SEO will fall.

Again, the draft order before originated on foot of a request by Connect Trade Union that applied to the Labour Court pursuant to section 14 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015.The request was for the Labour Court to examine the terms and conditions relating to the remuneration, and any sick pay scheme or pension scheme, for electricians and apprentices in the electrical contracting sector. This request was supported by a statutory declaration alongside a report by the Nevin Economic Research Institute. The report set out the union's position of what the scope or definition of the economic sector is, and that it was substantially representative in terms of its membership in the economic sector.

Having examined the submissions and the accompanying supporting materials, the Labour Court reports that it was satisfied that Connect Trade Union was substantially representative of the workers of the particular class, type or group in the economic sector. Connect had argued that it represents 10,349 workers of the class, type or group. It also submitted that the number of workers normally employed in the sector to which the request relates consists of approximately 16,650 workers.

Having satisfied itself that it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the examination, the Labour Court, as it is required to do under the law, published its intention to undertake an examination of the request and invited submissions on 1 June 2021. Written submissions were received from seven interested parties that represent employees, employers and pension providers. These submissions are available on the Labour Court's website. I have also shared the Labour Court's report to me with the members of this committee in order that they will have had an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the detail of the examination. Members will have seen that the 54-page report is very detailed and went into every issue that was discussed openly and clearly.

A public hearing was held on 23 and 24 September 2021. All interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to engage with the various policy considerations, including the Labour Court's earlier decision to proceed with the examination itself. Members will have seen from the report that the issue of whether the application had been made by a body that was "substantively representative" was debated in detail. The Labour Court also considered the argument on whether the electricians and apprentices working for small contractors could be excluded from the scope of the SEO. The Labour Court has concluded, interpreting the construction of the 2015 Act itself, that the SEO terms are binding in nature on allemployers in the economic sector concerned, including subcontractors and posted workers.

The other matters that the Labour Court was compelled to consider were whether this SEO will support the maintenance of harmonious relations in the economic sector; the potential impact of the making of an order on levels of employment and unemployment in the economic sector; the potential impact on competitiveness in the economic sector concerned; and whether the SEO would be binding on allworkers and employers in the economic sector concerned.

I can confirm to the committee that I have considered this draft recommendation in line with the terms of the 2015 Act, relying on the statutory report outlining the Labour Court's deliberative process. I am satisfied that the Labour Court has complied with its statutory role and that it was appropriate for me to refer to matter to this committee. I wrote to the Labour Court on 17 November 2021 to confirm that I accepted this recommendation. Furthermore, as required by the Act, I laid a draft order before the Houses on 19 November 2021.

I hope that the committee will accept this draft order. I believe this SEO plays a significant role in supporting this very important professional sector. The terms of the SEO refer merely to the minimum rates of pay and terms and conditions. At times when the sector is buoyant, as it now is, it is to be expected that remuneration for most electricians will exceed these minimum rates. The importance of an SEO is to ensure that in times of difficulty or downturns, electricians and apprentices in this sector are properly protected. By providing statutory certainly about minimum rates of pay the economic sector should maintain its attractiveness as a profession.

It has been a long-standing practice of the trade unions and the employers in this economic sector to form agreements that govern the terms and conditions of employment. These arrangements have been in place for many decades and have provided the industry with cost certainty and stability. Again, it is important to emphasise that this order, if approved by the committee, will apply to all employees within its scope, regardless of whether they or their employers were involved in this SEO process. In saying that, I am satisfied that any persons who sought to make submissions to the Labour Court were given an opportunity to be heard and their arguments have informed the Labour Court's recommendation on this matter. There was certainly plenty of public advertisement of the public hearings and the request for submissions.

Should this order be approved by the committee, I will sign an order giving it legal effect. Its terms will be binding across the entire economic sector. The new order will become effective on 1 February 2022 and will remain in place for two years with additional increases provided for in 2023. In conclusion, I thank the Chair and members for their time.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and invite members to contribute to this debate. I remind members to click on the hand symbol if they are speaking remotely and, importantly, to click off the hand symbol when finished. There is a rota. The first person who has indicated a wish to speak is Senator Gavan and he has 14 minutes.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. I welcome the fact that we have an SEO for the sector and I am delighted that the Minister of State has accepted the recommendation made by the Labour Court. That is very important and welcome.

The Labour Court has produced an interesting report on the SEO because there was quite a battle. I commend Connect Trade Union on successfully convincing the Labour Court of the merits of an SEO, which will benefit all workers across the sector. It is a great day's work or perhaps months of work by Connect Trade Union, in particular. This is a good day and I hope that we will agree to support the SEO.

As the Minister of State will know, an awful lot of the Connect members work in the construction industry. One issue I know he is very familiar with is the scourge of bogus self-employment. My colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, has raised the issue with him a number of times and given specific examples, including payslips etc. and this matter even involves local authorities.

I have a real worry about bogus self-employment. This week, I spoke to workers on a site in Limerick where I discovered that out of the seven blocklayers working for a subcontractor, as many as six were self-employed, which is absolute nonsense. I wish to ask the Minister of State a direct question, which I know that he will take in the spirit that it is given. Why has his Department not done more to tackle the scourge of bogus self-employment? I ask because the practice seems to be widening. I also worry that bogus self-employment will undermine the strong and good conditions that have been set out in the SEO.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before proceeding I would like to introduce my departmental colleagues. I am accompanied by Ms Tara Coogan and Ms Áine Maher. They are available to answer questions as I must leave early.

As time is limited, I will not have a deep conversation with the Senator on this issue. He has raised this issue before and I can assure him that we take it very seriously both in my own Department and the Department of Social Protection, which is under the remit of the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, where there is also a lot of focus and concentration on this matter. We take the issue very seriously. All cases are investigated when they are brought to our attention through a number of agencies that we operate with as well. The whole idea of having the conversation that we are having today on the SEO process is about good quality terms and conditions but one needs to be properly employed to be able to administer them as well. We take the issue seriously and there is strong legislation. At the moment across Europe, we are having a lot of meetings and the issue is a focus of discussion at the meeting of the European Council next week. I have no problem discussing the matter further offline with Senator Gavan but I do not have time to go into it in detail today because I literally must leave in eight minutes' time and I am conscious that members might have other questions on today's order. I hope that is okay, Chair.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that the Minister of State needs to leave. As of May 2021, we only had 53 people employed as workplace inspectors despite a report several years ago that suggested we needed a minimum of 90 workplace inspectors. We know from data provided by the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, that one in three inspections found breaches of employment law. One simple way to help tackle the scourge of bogus self-employment would be to employ more inspectors and yet we do not seem to have done that over several years. I ask the Minister of State to comment.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two issues. We have had a lengthy discussion in the Dáil on a couple of occasions, and I think that applies to the Seanad as well, on the number of inspectors employed by the WRC. I think that the report the Senator referenced dates back to 2008 so it predates the financial recession in this country. I note that it was a recommendation and not a Government commitment. We have increased the resources and staffing levels since then. The Tánaiste announced to the Houses during a debate in July that additional staff would be employed. Over the past year there has been a recruitment process to bring in extra staff and inspectors. The Senator mentioned Limerick. If there are issues of concern in Limerick or anywhere else, he knows that he can present them to me and to my colleagues and they will be dealt with and investigated, as they always are, because our inspectors target key areas of concern and always act on information.

The Senator referenced and presented concerns. We target areas where we know there are issues. That is the process of the work of the WRC and its staff.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a concern related to the introduction of this SEO, which I very much welcome and I glad the Minister of State is recommending it for acceptance. If we are to police it properly, do we not need to give the WRC more powers? Currently, if I am a worker on one of these construction sites, I have to make a reference or complaint to the WRC. What would normally happen in those circumstances is I would lose my job. There is a great deal of fear among workers on these sites. Why do we not consider increasing the powers of the WRC inspectors to ensure there is full compliance with SEOs? Currently, we do not have that.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure why Senator Gavan and his party colleagues repeatedly try to question that the legislation is not strong enough. I disagree with him on that. He often gives the impression people will lose out or suffer if they avail of our legislation. That is not true. He gave the same impression, namely, that the legislation was not in place to protect people, on the last occasion we discussed this area in Seanad. We have extremely strong protections in our employment law. While it may not be his intention, sometimes he makes comments that would scare people off using the law we have in place. The WRC advises me it has the laws, inspectors, systems and processes in place to deal with these concerns when they are flagged to it. Its inspectors are able to go out on site and investigate. I do not know why the Senator consistently gives the impression that people will suffer if they bring forward concerns or complaints in this respect. That is not the case. Our legislation is in place to protect workers.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two reasons. First, if the Minister of State listened to what trade unions have said, he would know they have consistently said there are not enough inspectors. Second, as someone who worked as a trade union official for many years, I can tell him, hand on heart, that what happens every day when workers try to stand up for their rights, unless they have a union behind them, and in many cases workers do not - the Minister of State will be aware that we do not have collective bargaining legislation in this State - they are fired and they are threatened with being fired every day. If the Minister of State does not realise that or know what is happening on construction sites across the country, I am even more concerned.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure what more the Chairman wants me to do here. Senator Gavan has said we have no legislation on collective bargaining but we are here today discussing a form of collective bargaining. That is exactly what we are doing . I am not sure where the Senator wants to go with this.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister of State is asking me to comment-----

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is-----

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Gavan made the point that if the SEO is to be implemented properly and workers are to be protected, we need to make sure the SEO is done properly across the industry. That is the point he made about having additional inspectors.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I dealt with that point at the start with respect to extra staff.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have always tried to chair meetings as fairly as possible and to let people speak. An SEO is being implemented across the industry. As the Minister of State said in his opening statement, this is the first time an SEO is being introduced in this industry. The Senator has raised legitimate concerns about whether it would be policed and that is a fair question.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the question with which I have an issue. It will be policed. We have all agreed we need extra inspectors. That is why a process has been under way in recent months to recruit extra inspectors. The budget was set aside to provide for that in 2021 and in 2022 and we were successful in that. The issue I have is that an impression has been given repeatedly by a certain party in this House that the law does not protect people and people will suffer if they come forward. That is not the case. That is the wrong impression to be giving. We would urge people to use the legislation, the law and protections we have in place. That is what we will disagree on. It is unfair to give the impression that people will suffer if they highlight concerns they have in employment because our legislation is place to protect against that and, generally, that does not happen in cases.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that without union protection, workers often suffer. I remind the Minister of State, and let us be clear on this, there is no statutory right to collective bargaining in this State. I ask him to acknowledge that unless he is suddenly going to pull a rabbit out of a hat and, if he is, I would be very happy to endorse it. There is no statutory right to collective bargaining hin this State. That is a massive problem. It leaves us as an outlier compared to our European colleagues.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are going to disagree but I must state that workers are protected under our legislation and it is wrong to give the impression they are not. I cannot say any more than that the protections, legislation and staff are in place. We all agree we can increase the number of inspectors and that is what we are doing. That is where that is at.

Regarding our laws, with respect to collective bargaining, as of this moment in time and next week we will be discussing the EU directive in this space also. I will be happy to discuss that with the committee again but what we are doing today is a form of collective bargaining. I repeat it is wrong to give the impression that workers cannot seek protections. There are employment laws in this country. I have to keep saying that. It is wrong to give that impression. The Senator will scare people off using the system that is in place to protect them and to make sure their rights are protected.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish up. We need to bring the Minister of State down to a few construction sites to speak at first hand with workers. He needs an education on this issue.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Senator wish to continue with a different question? He has some time remaining.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State might give us clarity on the number of additional inspectors being hired right now.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At this time I think ten have come through the process and been hired. This process has taken quite a long time. As I said yesterday, and the Chairman will recall the debate, both with respect to the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, and the WRC, when we employ new inspectors we try to make sure we get people with the right skills and qualifications. The money has been set aside for it. It has not been a budgetary issue. It has involved a process of sourcing them. I think ten have come through the process. As for what the Tánaiste said in the most recent discussion on this matter, his intention is to continue with that recruitment in the years ahead also.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Minister of State clarify how many inspectors we have right now as a team?

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about 60. It could be 59 or 60. I will send the Senator an exact note on that to make sure I am right.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not expect the Minister of State to be precise. Around 60 sounds about right, which clearly is not enough. We can discuss the fact that the figure was 90 before the recession and we have had a number of years of growth since that recession. Ninety inspectors were required in 2008. The Minister of State surely is not going to tell me that 60 is enough right now, is he?

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The figure of 90 that was discussed prior to the recession was not a Government commitment and it was not signed up to. We did not say this had to be achieved. We have analysed this. We work with the WRC. I engaged with it as a Minister and on behalf of the Department on a regular basis and we try to work through its workload and the numbers it needs. We have responded to its requests for additional resources and staff over the last two budgets and that is the work I will continue to do to grow its numbers. We both agree there are not enough inspectors at present. That is why we are increasing the number. That is the intention.

I will have to be rude as I must leave as I am due to be on the floor of the Dáil for a discussion at 10 a.m. I can take another brief question but I will have to leave in less than a minute.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a final point. I understand that the Minister of State has to leave. We had a presentation from fishers a few weeks ago and discovered that despite a report from this committee five years ago urging the WRC to maintain inspections, less than half the number of the inspectors were carrying out inspections this year compared to four or five years ago. Unfortunately, that is the reality on the ground in one of the most exploited sectors in our economy. We need to do not just more but much more. I thank the Minister of State.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Inspections with respect to fisheries cross over a number Departments. An interdepartmental working group, involving four or five Departments, is dealing with our approach to managing the atypical work permits scheme. I have said publicly on the record that the process to review it has begun. It is important we do that to see if we can improve that situation and we are all happy to do that. That atypical work permits scheme was introduced in response to a concern for that sector in 2015 or 2016. If I remember correctly, all vessels that come under that scheme are inspected quite regularly and certainly inspections are carried out. I have agreed with other Ministers we should review that scheme and we are doing that. That review will include the number of people who will monitor the scheme and the various permits. I apologise for having to leave. I am sorry about that.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State indicated earlier that he would have to leave and that is fine. I thank him for his contribution. His officials are here. The next person who has indicated to speak is Senator Crowe and he has 14 minutes. His colleague, Deputy Flaherty, is also with us. They can share time. The Fianna Fáil speaking slot is 14 minutes.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will share the time with Deputy Flaherty. I have a few questions. I thank the Minister of State for his briefing. I welcome that Ms Coogan and Ms Maher are present to answer any questions following on from his briefing.

The amendment is much needed and very welcome. The Minister of State outlined in his contribution that the legislation would be passed by 1 February. I seek confirmation that the timeframe is correct. It seems a little bit tight to me but I will await confirmation of that.

Another concern I have is that businesses that are struggling currently and that might be unable to make certain payments are unlikely to survive into January. Could the Minister of State or the officials indicate what sort of flexibility will be given to such businesses to make repayments, given the need for the Government to support them and ensure minimal job losses? I will hand over to Deputy Flaherty when those two questions are answered.

Ms Tara Coogan:

As for the commencement of this particular order, if it is passed it will commence on 1 February 2022. As this is being made by way of a statutory instrument, all it requires is the Minister's signature and my understanding is that he will sign it as soon as he gets the committee's approval to do so.

With regard to the inability to pay under a sectoral employment order, there is a similar statutory provision under the 2015 Act, as there is for the National Minimum Wage Act, so there is a mechanism. If an employer is genuinely unable to make the minimum payments, as per the sectoral employment order, he or she can seek exemption from the requirement through the Labour Court. There is a process for that particular mechanism. Does that answer the Senator's questions?

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine on the first one but could Ms Coogan explain what flexibility is involved in the process? I am concerned in that regard.

Ms Tara Coogan:

Each case must be determined on its own merits. The employer would have to make an application to the Labour Court and it would have a hearing to explore the various aspects of the business case being made to support the case that a business is unable to make these payments. If it is helpful, we can send the Senator a more thorough note setting out the statutory process in detail. I could do that after the meeting if that would help.

Ollie Crowe (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would appreciate it if Ms Coogan could do that. I will hand over to Deputy Flaherty now.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank those involved for the briefing this morning. I wish to raise a related issue that the witnesses might be able to assist me with. I appreciate that I am probably going a bit off the subject in this regard. It relates to work permits. The system is working much better at the moment. An issue I am increasingly encountering relates to employers who successfully secure permits for people who are trying to get visas to come and work here. I understand it is not the remit of the Department and it relates more to the Department of Justice, but I would appreciate if the officials could provide feedback to the Department of Justice as there seems to be no consistency across the various embassies, in particular in Karachi and New Delhi in terms of turnaround times, what constitutes a legitimate visa application and why applications and subsequent appeals are turned down. I do not know if the officials have any further knowledge of the issue or if any fact-finding has been done on it but there seems to be no consistency across the various embassies on it, which is a cause of concern. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is doing everything possible for employers in granting the visas but it is extremely frustrating for employers who have done everything at this end when they cannot get workers into the country.

In one case I know the chef worked in a leading Dublin hotel and has opened his own restaurant at the peak of the pandemic. He is running it with his wife and son and is desperately trying to get a chef into the country. He has been frustrated at every turn for the past nine months.

Ms Tara Coogan:

I take it from what Deputy Flaherty says that the issues are with our own Irish embassies in New Delhi and Karachi.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Ms Tara Coogan:

We do interact quite a bit with our colleagues in the Department of Justice and I can certainly inquire into the matter and see if they are aware of any issue. The best approach, however, might be to contact the Department of Foreign Affairs about the particular issue if it is the case that embassies are approaching things differently.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Coogan.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Flaherty wish to ask anything else?

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is all for now.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take the 14 minutes. I support the Minister signing the order. I read through the Labour Court report. As the Minister of State indicated, it seems there was quite a robust debate and discussion but at the end of the day, a good amount of work was done and I welcome the outcome.

I have one question for the officials. I am concerned about the number of apprentices who leave every year. Reference was made to the number of those leaving electrical apprenticeships – 268 in 2016, 369 in 2017, 345 in 2018. Quite a lot of apprentices do not stay. I know orders like this will probably help in some way and that is one of the reasons they are there. Has research been carried out as to why apprentices leave? It may be the case that it is not what they expected when they went in initially but it seems to be a real disruption in young people's lives if they take on a role and then leave, as well as a waste of any training time they encountered. Right across all apprenticeships, more and more go into these roles and then leave for whatever reason and I am anxious to know why this is the case. I guess orders like this will assist.

I am also concerned about bogus self-employment. I put that on the record. I have had discussions with some employers recently who made the point that many of the benefits we are introducing, relating to sick pay for example, could be undermined by bogus self-employment. Some of the very large companies are partaking in this. I agree with the Minister of State and colleagues that we must do more to deal with this issue. That is the question I had on apprentices.

Ms Tara Coogan:

I am not aware of whether any detailed research has been carried out as to why people leave apprenticeships but I would be very surprised if there has not been research into it. However, in the construction sector it appears to be the case, anecdotally, that sometimes it is due to the lure of the salaries for unskilled workers. Having been an apprentice for a few years, you can then become a general operative. The few euro extra in the pay packet can sometimes be the reason people decide to leave programmes like apprenticeships. These are issues that need to be considered but they are outside my specific remit.

The reality of a sectoral employment order and one of the policy intentions is to demonstrate that if you acquire a skill and you become a craftsperson or a skilled electrician that you have a very valuable profession that has a guaranteed minimum income that will never be below whatever it is and the market can dictate it is much higher. I hope this will go some way, but I suspect there are further issues that need to be examined in that particular space.

Bogus self-employment is not something new or that the Department is not aware of. It is certainly not something that we are not taking seriously. I recently had an interdepartmental meeting with my colleagues in Revenue and in the Department of Social Protection. There are three different regulatory regimes, so the issue is decided in different contexts in different ways. We are looking into this particular issue. One of the things that occurs to me, which is merely a suggestion, is that there is a need to promote sectoral employment orders to make sure that people are aware of the benefits.

Whether it is bogus self-employment or whatever, sometimes people may think that being a self-employed person is more attractive scenario but they do not realise the totality of it, such as the benefits of a pension and so on and so forth. There is a lot of educational work that could be done in this particular area. I hope that going forward, this is an area where unions and employer bodies will work jointly. There should be some efforts in that area. However, that is just an opinion of mine.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Coogan. I have finished.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next person to speak is Deputy Shanahan. He has seven minutes.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two quick questions. Like others, I welcome the sectoral employment order. I think it is a good step. It may be out of step with where the market is at the moment regarding construction. There is certainly a great lack of electricians and a great lack of tradespeople in general. I ask Ms Coogan to outline one of the statements in the briefing note, which is that the sectoral employment order will guarantee a minimum rate of pay. Where is that in relation to the rates prevailing at the moment, does she think? What kind of security does that give?

Ms Tara Coogan:

I am not an expert in this area. My understanding is that currently electricians are being paid far more significant salaries in the main than they would be under the minimum rate of pay. As the Deputy knows, electricians are in short supply. It is a highly skilled profession. As well as this, construction is doing well. I therefore could not answer the Deputy about the general rate of pay. However, certainly, this rate is the floor. My understanding is this is not what the median rate of pay currently is.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just on the point of bogus self-employment, as Ms Coogan described it, there are some reasons why people would prefer to be self employed coming onto a site, particularly for a short-term contract. They might decide to do this, depending on their relationship with the Revenue Commissioners. They might be operating as a sole trader and therefore they are coming onto the site. They might also be contracted into a general contract. Will that force people who are essentially self-employed to make additional payments or provide additional covers under their own business? Or does it have any effect on them? Can they basically operate just as sole traders into a general contract?

Ms Tara Coogan:

When I said, “bogus self-employment”, I simply used this colloquial term. Obviously, a bogus self-employed person is not self-employed. They are employed. That is the distinction. If a person is genuinely self-employed, then he or she is genuinely self-employed and sets his or her own market rate. That is one of the difficulties in this space. While some people will maintain that they are indeed self-employed, somebody else might say that they are in fact employed. This is why this requires some fair processes and why people need to look into it in more detail. It is hard to nominate somebody. However, a person who is self-employed is not covered by a sectoral employment order.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies, I lost the last part of Ms Coogan’s contribution.

Ms Tara Coogan:

I just said that a genuinely self-employed person is not covered by a sectoral order.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The last thing I will add is not a question but a statement. I welcome the work the Department has done on this. It is progressive and we should endorse it. Hopefully the Minister will sign it. One issue that arises for smaller contractors going on to sites is how they are being treated by general contractors. This pay floor will obviously mandate that a smaller contractor must offer pension entitlements, sick pay and all the rest. The Department needs to start looking at the line between general contractors and small-term subcontractors and how they are treated. Ultimately, a subcontractor has to provide this additional floor to all of his or her workers, while still trying to get paid by the general contractors. A feature of the construction sector in Ireland for many years, which probably is starting again, is that subcontractors oftentimes get hit with charges with lack of payment from general contractors. They have no issuance to the Department or anyone else to go there for that. I just point that out to Ms Coogan. I thank the Chair and I have finished.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next person who has indicated to speak is Senator Marie Sherlock, who has seven minutes.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of brief comments to make. I hugely welcome the giving of the legal effect of the sectoral employment order. It is a real vindication of the processes of the Labour Court. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the perseverance of Connect Trade Union in ensuring that this SEO was considered by the Labour Court, as well as that the Labour Court has now made its decision.

From reading the submissions and the Labour Court report, there is evidently a serious dispute at the heart of it all about who is substantially representative of workers in electrical contracting. That raises serious questions about the enforcement of the SEO, as well as the responsibility of the State, the Government and the WRC to ensure that this SEO is implemented and enforced. While I appreciate that there might have been a slight defensiveness on the part of the Minister of State earlier to the effect that laws are in place, it is important that we do not overestimate the effect of anti-discrimination clauses within our legislation. Ultimately, it is only when we have people working with those who are victimised, when we have trade unions representing those who are put into vulnerable situations, that we will see the effect of those anti-victimisation clauses.

Normally, I might be a bit disgruntled to be coming at the end of a conversation. However, I note what Deputy Shanahan highlighted with regards to subcontracting, as well as the comment earlier by Ms Coogan with regards to the information campaign that needs to take place with regard to bogus self-employment. There are two issues here, bogus self-employment and subcontracting. Both have been distinct and indeed related features within the wider construction sector for many years. There are particular issues associated with both. The enormous growth of subcontracting has had all sorts of implications for the taking on of apprentices, for the payment by the main contractors to subcontractors and a whole raft of other issues.

With regards to bogus self-employment, it is important that the Government, employers and trade unions are brought into the room to discuss how we combat this. This should not just be about trade unions talking about it, or indeed the Government talking about it but should be about employers as well. In this particular instance, it should include employers in electrical contracting. There is a responsibility on the part of employers to say that this is not acceptable.

I believe that employers have to a certain extent have been let off the hook over a number of years. The Government could do a lot more. Trade unions have been talking about the costs associated with bogus self-employment. A message should go out that employers need to be brought into the room as to how we finally stamp this out. Bogus self-employment is not good for employers, it is not good for workers and it is not good for the State either, considering taxes lost.

I want to say that I very much welcome this SEO, but really, we will need to focus on enforcement now. In particular, this is because of the issues with trying to bring this SEO to the Labour Court, with getting the Labour Court to make its decision and with the disputes along the way. Enforcement is vital.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Coogan have a comment on that?

Ms Tara Coogan:

Was there a question in Senator Sherlock’s contribution?

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was more a contribution, I had thought, to be honest with you.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is all right, I do not require any response.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes our consideration of the matter. I propose that the committee requests the clerk to the committee to inform the Dáil and Seanad accordingly. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy English, in his absence, for assisting the committee. I know he had to leave early, which he had indicated on coming here. I also thank the officials from the Department, Ms Tara Coogan and Ms Áine Maher, for assisting the committee in its consideration of this matter. It is much appreciated.