Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I was about to acknowledge the positive role played by the Deputy in one area. If this House and the public are to be convinced that this company is subject to the type of competitive pressures claimed, then much more information will be necessary together with a greater willingness to engage in dialogue with its workforce.

Preliminary advice has been received from the Attorney General's office regarding whether or not a statutory redundancy situation will exist in Irish Ferries. As no formal communication has been received in the Department from the company regarding the exact nature of the proposed redundancies, this advice is based on media reports of what Irish Ferries intends to do. On the basis of the information available, the "redundancy" may not fall within the definition in the Redundancy Payments Acts. Clarity can only be brought to the issue if, and when, the company makes a formal application to the Department for a redundancy rebate. In that event and in the event of disagreement it would be possible to refer the matter to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

I am not in a position to say that the company is not experiencing tougher competition in a rapidly changing environment. Neither am I in a position to say that changes in work practices at the company are not necessary to cope with new challenges. However, this matter should be addressed on the specifics of this case and not confused with wider issues relating to overseas workers in Ireland. Owing to the particular circumstances governing employment and regulation in the maritime sector, the emerging situation in Irish Ferries cannot simply be replicated in the wider economy, where the broad framework of Irish employment law and social protection will still apply.

The Deputies proposing the motion request the House to condemn what is termed "the growing tendency in areas such as construction, the meat industry, hotels and catering to exploit migrant labour at the expense of permanent jobs on trade union rates of pay and decent working conditions." It is important to bear in mind the distinction between what is illegal and what can be held to constitute exploitation. The former is set out in law while the latter tends to be much more subjective. The State is obliged to enforce employment law and conditions where these are regulated. It is also obliged to ensure to the greatest extent possible that persons are not brought into the State by employers likely to exploit such persons. In this regard, the House should note that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has in recent years refused to grant new work permits to employers found to be abusing the facility. This can be and was done for clearly stated reasons of public policy and without any requirement to go to court. Certain cases were also referred to the Garda national immigration bureau for further investigation and where evidence warranted it, some employers have been prosecuted.

One of the greatest factors putting workers in danger of exploitation is when an employee is working illegally within the State. This can come about through illegal entry, through overstaying a visitor's visa or through being otherwise in breach of the terms on which a person is admitted to the State. Employers who employ such persons are committing a criminal offence under the Employment Permits Act 2003 and, furthermore, they also stand to gain a competitive advantage over employers who meet their obligations under Irish employment law and who value and look after their workforce. Illegal working undercuts all those who are working legally. I urge all Deputies and all members of the public who may come across such illegal employment with its associated capacity for exploitation to report details to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to enable appropriate action to be taken.

I am frequently disappointed to hear people, including occasionally Members in the House, make broad statements without giving specifics. Once details are made available to the Department, such issues will be pursued. I urge everybody to make such information available to the inspectors.

In the rapidly expanding economy of recent years, it has become clear that an increase in the numbers employed in the labour inspectorate was necessary to assist in ensuring compliance with the legal obligations of the many new enterprises. As Members will be aware, we are in the process of increasing the number of inspectors from 17 to 31. However, the Department, like other State agencies must also rely, to a large degree, on the assistance and information provided by other groups in civil society. While labour inspectors cannot be everywhere at once, they can certainly be deployed where a clear prima facie case has been made. In this regard, I would suggest to the House, in general, and to the Deputies who have raised this matter in particular, that they should bring the details of any specific breaches of employment law or conditions by specific employers in their constituencies to the attention of the Department. Deputy Joe Higgins made a very valuable contribution in this regard recently, based on evidence. This can assist greatly in ensuring a rapid and effective response. We will respond with a single-minded determination to gather evidence sufficient to prosecute transgressors. This applies to the sectors mentioned in the motion tabled by the Deputies opposite and to any other sectors where such problems arise.

We in Ireland are very fortunate in the industrial relations systems we have developed together. The fundamental approach of successive Governments to industrial relations has been one of voluntarism. There is consensus among the social partners that the terms and conditions of employment of workers are best determined through the process of voluntary bargaining between employers and workers and between employers' associations and one or more trade unions or staff associations. This approach to industrial relations has served us well over the years.

In general, our laws do not try to impose a solution on parties to a trade dispute, but rather are designed to help support the parties in resolving their differences. The State has, by and large, confined its role to underpinning voluntarism through the provision of a framework and institutions through which good industrial relations can prosper. Institutions have been established that can assist in the resolution of disputes between employers and workers such as the Labour Relations Commission, including its rights commissioner service, the Labour Court and the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

Our model for partnership is unique and adapted to Irish needs enabling us to manage rapid change successfully built on support for the changes necessary to meet our economic and societal goals of growth and employment. In addition, institutions of social partnership play a significant role in ensuring delivery of the industrial stability and peace provisions of the national agreements. In this context, the national implementation body serves as a forum where the Government, employers and trade unions can work together to help ensure a positive industrial relations climate for economic and social progress. The national implementation body has played an important role in the Irish Ferries issue by calling on the parties to respond positively to an invitation from the Labour Court to both parties to meet for informal and exploratory discussions.

To remain a competitive, growing economy, with the capacity to improve our social provision we must continue to build on what it has achieved for us. Over the past 18 years, if we have learned anything, it is that a shared analysis of the issues coupled with a problem-solving approach has worked.

Social partnership, however, is not a recipe for perfection. Not everything works as planned. Not everyone complies with what is expected of them in the agreements. Imperfect as it is, however, it has delivered far more for each of the participants — all of us — than could possibly be achieved in the bad old days of confrontation and conflict. As rapid economic and social change continues, Irish society needs the stability provided by the partnership approach. Everyone has benefited. As the Taoiseach said this morning, everyone — employers, trade unions and the Government — has an obligation to contribute to its continuation. Those who are free riders on partnership and ignore its requirements on their behaviour should not be supported.

However, honest engagement in a problem-solving way within the partnership process is an obligation on us all. There is no problem of employment relations which cannot be sensibly addressed through partnership, and none which can be addressed more effectively by abandoning partnership. If people have an alternative model to offer they should do so, but in the interim the benefits of partnership are clear to all.

While serious issues require to be addressed urgently in Irish Ferries, these can and should be progressed with the support and assistance of the State's industrial relations machinery. Accordingly, the initial reluctance of Irish Ferries to accede to the invitation from the Labour Court to discuss the proposed redundancy package was profoundly regrettable. However, Irish Ferries and the unions did attend the Labour Court on Monday, 3 October. Arising from the meeting, the company agreed to enter talks aimed at finding agreement by the end of October at the latest on its proposed redundancy package.

In the light of those developments, normal industrial relations procedures are now being followed at Irish Ferries, which I welcome. This was not the case when I answered questions in the House last week. The services of the State's dispute-settling machinery of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court will continue to be at the disposal of the parties involved.

See this speech in context