Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputies Curran, Ardagh, Kelleher and Tony Dempsey.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I look forward to all the contributions on this motion, particularly that of my colleague, Deputy Tony Dempsey, who represents the Wexford constituency. He will particularly emphasise the support which many of us wish to express. It is important to acknowledge that the opportunity to discuss this important issue arises from the initiative of the Independent Deputies who have placed this motion on the agenda. I compliment them in this regard.

As in my political work in general, I bring my own experiences to this debate. I am aware of what is sometimes said about Fianna Fáil Deputies in the context of such debates, but I remind Members that I have a trade union background. I have never worked at sea but my paternal grandfather died working on the sea. For this reason, I have always had a particular interest in issues relating to the rights of seafaring workers. My grandfather was at sea at a time when workers were not as well looked after and that cost him his life. I have a great deal of sympathy in regard to the matter under discussion.

It is important that we should express solidarity with the Irish Ferries workers. There has been much political debate on this issue and some Opposition Members have made colourful contributions. That is fair enough in the rough and tumble of politics. I listened carefully to last night's debate, particularly the contributions of the Ministers of State, Deputies Killeen and Gallagher. I compliment both in expressing the general view of Fianna Fáil Members that we are strongly in favour of supporting the Irish Ferries workers. There has been much talk, both inside and outside the House, in the last number of days on the question of social partnership. This issue was discussed at a Community Platform meeting I attended today in the National Library.

I appreciate that colleagues have different views on the partnership process. I have been a strong supporter of it throughout my community life and am proud of what the Government has achieved in this regard. During leaders' questions on 28 September, I was pleased to hear the Taoiseach's forthright comments which were strongly supportive of the Irish Ferries workers and critical of the company. Despite what might be said in the cut and thrust of political debate, the Taoiseach did not spare Irish Ferries and it is time for other organisations and individuals to provide some answers. There has been some criticism of how IBEC has responded to this issue, for example, but I do not propose to speak on behalf of that body.

I ask that Members behave responsibly during this debate. I had hoped to be in Lansdowne Road tonight or to at least watch the performance of the Tallaght players Robbie Keane and Richard Dunne on television. Instead, I will listen to this important debate. The Government understands the sensitivities of the situation and is supportive of the workers. I look forward to the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, in this regard.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I regret the decision of Irish Ferries to make 543 of its seafarers redundant or to retain them under reduced pay and conditions. This is distressing for the workers and their families. I also note that SIPTU, the Seamen's Union of Ireland and the company are in talks under the auspices of the Labour Court. All Members must be careful to say nothing that might prejudice those discussions. The debate on the Irish Ferries situation illustrates that as a small island nation, situations such as this can affect us severely and that we are vulnerable to issues of international trade. We should be much more conscious of this when discussing issues in this House, whether it be the question of foreign direct investment or so forth.

When our colleague, Deputy Hogan, spoke on this issue last night, he was particularly negative in respect of many aspects of Government policy. He said "People have heard me regularly in this House listing all the stealth taxes and charges so I will not bore the House with them". Nevertheless, he went on to list them all, including VAT, vehicle registration tax and so on.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He listed only some of them. That was not an exhaustive list.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He listed a good number of such taxes.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fianna Fáil seems to be targeting Deputy Hogan. Deputy Dennehy did the same earlier.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want an argument but I am pleased that Deputy Deenihan is here to back up Deputy Hogan.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Dennehy spoke about Deputy Hogan for 20 minutes today. My colleague is evidently annoying Fianna Fáil Members.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not intend to speak about Deputy Hogan for 20 minutes.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Curran must have somebody in the Fianna Fáil press office undertaking an analysis——

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nobody is undertaking any such work on my behalf.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Was Deputy Curran handed the transcript of Deputy Hogan's contribution?

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Certainly. It included hand-written notes. I know some Members do not believe it. The point I wish to make is not related to the fact that I have a transcript of last night's debate. The point is that even when one combines income tax and all indirect taxes, Ireland is one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe. This is a fact whether Members like it or not. Opposition Members can claim somebody in the press office wrote this speech for me. However, I ask Members to do the sums and they will reach the same conclusion that Ireland is a low tax regime. They may not want to admit that is the case.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Curran refer to direct rather than indirect taxation?

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the combined tax take. We are the lowest as a percentage of——

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are the highest.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is absolutely incorrect.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a 13.5% VAT rate in this State in comparison with an average rate of 5% elsewhere in Europe.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yet one cannot get a hospital bed.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not disputing that individual taxes may be higher or lower. I am telling the Deputy directly that the combined tax take, including VAT, vehicle registration tax, income tax and so on, is one of the lowest in Europe. He may choose not to acknowledge this by focussing on specifics. A press officer has not devised this comment for me.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we return to the issue of Irish Ferries?

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I got distracted and have run out of time.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this issue and I thank the Independent Deputies for putting forward this motion.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ardagh is welcome.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is an issue deserving of comprehensive discussion in the House, not only in terms of what we can do about the horrific situation at Irish Ferries but in regard to the question of Ireland's future as a maritime nation and what the Government has done to push forward that agenda.

The initial action by Irish Ferries unilaterally trying to change the way it is staffed is totally unacceptable. There is no moral justification whatsoever for the action it took. It was driven purely by the profit motive and it is not in the interests of business generally that companies of the size and stature of the Irish Continental Group should go forward on the basis of profit only. There is a social and a community responsibility on the part of all major companies in a country such as Ireland. It is because the people of Ireland have worked so hard in the past that the companies in Ireland are making such good profits. To take this action against its staff is unacceptable.

I am delighted Irish Ferries has finally, against the head, gone into the industrial relations machinery and, hopefully, whatever action comes at the end of the day will be agreed by all the social partners involved and, particularly, will be to the advantage of the staff of Irish Ferries.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did the Government do the same thing only six months ago?

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Internationally conditions of employment are a matter for the flag state. This is an internationally accepted maritime law and practice. Every ship, whether a ferry or cargo ship, that travels in Europe could have a flag of Panama or Liberia. There are questions to be asked and there are discussions that need to take place at a European level as to what flag can be used on ships that operate in Europe and out of Europe.

We must take into account also the fact that Ireland is a peripheral State that depends on the ro-ro on cargo ships and on ferry ships to get our cargo and trade to the continent and further afield. Bearing in mind the strategic importance of shipping, its employment tradition and the history built up in recent years in regard to minimum wages and other good conditions of employment, we should take positive action in Europe to bring about standards on the sea that are acceptable in Ireland also.

In recent years the Government has made huge strides in developing the maritime industry in Ireland, particularly with the maritime development organisation which has looked upon Irish shipping as being of huge strategic importance. There is room for development and enlargement of the shipping services in Ireland. There is room for more Irish people to develop seafaring as a career.

The Government has put in place financial incentives for Irish and other seafaring companies to register their boats in Ireland, including the refund of employers' PRSI, an income tax allowance for seafarers working at sea for over 161 days a year and the flat rate tonnage tax. These are all attractions for companies to register their boats in Ireland. However, there is also the question of wages which must be examined at European level to ensure that the ships that operate around Europe, and particularly from Ireland, are operated at wage levels comparable to the wage levels that pertain in all of the developed western European countries.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government was going to facilitate Irish Ferries six months ago. The company got millions of euro.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand why it is in the interests of Irish Ferries to go to the industrial machinery — because of the redundancy it could be €7.3 million out of pocket. That is probably part of the reason it is going.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government financed it six months ago.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope that at the end of the day a suitable resolution of the problem will come about.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no explanation.

Tony Dempsey (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá díoma orm go bhfuil muid ag plé ceiste comh deacair is atá an cheist seo.

The seafaring industry nationally is worth in the order of €1.45 billion to the economy. Deputy Howlin and I have met Irish Ferries and members of the seafaring industry regularly in recent years. I do not need to stress the importance of Irish Ferries to Wexford and the importance of what Irish Ferries is attempting to do.

The Taoiseach's recent contribution in the Dáil left us in no doubt as to how the Government views the approach of Irish Ferries, which is to be regretted. There are implications for the whole of the social partnership on which the success of the last decade has been founded. Whether, as the Taoiseach pointed out, the offer from Irish Ferries can be viewed as redundancy is a question that is open to debate. The Attorney General has indicated that even though no application has as yet been made to the Department and he cannot rule on it until such an application is made he has grave concerns. It appears to me that if one offers a redundancy on a take it-or accept deteriorating employment conditions, that is not redundancy.

The conflict is between a company trying to enhance profits and a union trying to protect the rights of workers who have contributed in no small measure to serious profits for Irish Ferries. At long last Irish Ferries may have seen some light since it has agreed to talk. All conflicts can only be resolved by meaningful dialogue and engagement where people are prepared to listen to the other point of view. It is a tragedy that in this case Irish Ferries has taken too long to listen to what its workers are saying. Workers may well be forced to accept what is called redundancy through fear.

The difficulty for a Government is that it cannot introduce legislation willy-nilly without reference to the European Union. While it might be appropriate to say that a foreign company using our ports would have to accept Irish labour law the converse would be that an Irish ship entering another port might have to accept the labour laws of that port. That is the difficulty. The Ministers involved will do their best to introduce some kind of legislation the result of which should be that the seafaring industry is not decimated.

The maritime college in Cork has been set up at tremendous expense to the taxpayer. If the few professionals who are training there to take out their various tickets cannot be ensured employment within our national industry it would be an unmitigated disaster.

I have no problem with non-nationals working in Ireland provided they work under Irish contracts and are treated with the respect which Members of all parties and Independent Members have earned for workers in the past. That is kernel of this matter. We cannot return to Dickensian days and tell workers that they did not contribute. Neither can we ignore the contribution seafarers have made. The shipping industry would be under threat if the Irish Ferries company was not prepared to note and accept the workers' contribution. The cost to us as taxpayers could be in the region of €12 million if redundancies occur. I, for one, hope it will be ruled that it is not a redundancy situation. The cost to the company is significant also. The profits it hopes to enhance could be considerably reduced by the cost of the redundancy package, if it is implemented.

The motion by the Independent group of Deputies has focused the House on this matter and I am glad we can be ad idem on it. It is time Irish Ferries considered national and local interests apart from profits.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the permission of the House, I wish to share time with Deputy Broughan.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this motion and commend my Independent colleagues for having tabled it. It is straight, direct and appropriate to the extraordinary situation we are facing. As my constituency colleague Deputy Tony Dempsey said, those of us in Wexford have a long history of understanding Irish Ferries. The company was once highly respected, offering employment in my constituency and elsewhere and providing a vital service to the State. Unfortunately, the company's recent history is less glorious. In recent times, we have seen the debacle of a Filipina woman who was offered €1 an hour to work as a hairdresser on one of the company's vessels. That woman was treated deplorably. Another woman working on another ferry owned by the company was treated in a similar fashion, but even up to today she has not been offered adequate compensation.

The pattern has emerged of a company that was once reputable and glorious but which has now become a disreputable, maverick operator in the Irish employment sphere. We have had the experience of the MV Normandy whose workers were given notice while on board the ship. The personnel director of Irish Ferries flew to France and boarded the ship to give out redundancy notices to individual workers with an instruction that he wanted to collect them before the ship docked. Virtually no opportunity was given to people to consider their position or discuss it with their trade union representatives. It is not the way we do business in this State where our labour law has been developed and refined over decades to bring about the industrial peace we have enjoyed along with the prosperity that has flowed from it.

Employers, unions and elected representatives must stand firm and not allow any maverick outfit to pull down the edifice of social partnership that has been painstakingly put together by so many people for so long.

At the time of the MV Normandy fiasco, bad and all as it was, promises were given that it would not have any implications for the Irish Sea routes because it was unique to the French ferry. I am afraid, however, that the promise did not last cracking time. There are clear knock-on consequences now, one of which is the demise in recent weeks of Rosslare Ship Repairs, a company that employed workers to maintain the MV Normandy. Apparently, east European workers are able to do everything on the MV Normandy, including crewing the vessel, acting as stewards and doing maintenance. There are issues for us to address on that matter.

These new proposals, however, go well beyond that assault. They are nothing less than an outright attack on social partnership. Social partnership is a two-way process. It has given benefits to everyone, including workers, employers and society at large. The attitude of the employers' organisation, IBEC, is inexplicable therefore. Has IBEC decided to abandon social partnership? It is hard to read any other conclusion into IBEC's statements on the matter. One commentator likened this outrageous move to the outsourcing of workers to third countries but that is an unfair comparison. This situation involves the removal of Irish jobs which are being replaced — because the company has a loophole through which to do it — by people who are paid a fraction of Irish workers' wages, but who take the positions because they are vulnerable and any job is welcome.

The role and attitude of the Government must be examined in this affair. I have sat through this debate from the start, unlike many Members who have flitted in to make comments. We have seen the attitude of the Taoiseach who is the so-called architect of partnership. He was initially aghast but he is not mindful to do anything. The Government amendment is weak and unacceptable. It notes "with concern the initial reluctance of Irish Ferries to engage", but do we have any evidence of an engagement now, beyond peripheral engagement? The Government motion calls on Irish Ferries to "reconsider", but that is not the sort of robust reply from somebody who is supposed to be the defender — or, if one was to believe him, the creator — of social partnership.

The entire response encapsulated in the Government amendment is inadequate and vacuous. The comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, last night were even worse. Presumably with the notion of trying to be objective, he stated "It should not be forgotten that there are two sides to this dispute... I am aware of the commercial pressures on all shipping companies to reduce their costs and streamline their operations", as if this was a streamlining process rather than something unprecedented in Irish industrial relations. The Minister of State went on to say, "It is not for me to seek to determine an independent shipping company's business strategy". In this instance, however, it is up to the Government to have a view on the outright destruction of Irish jobs and their replacement with vulnerable workers at a fraction of the cost, that is entirely out of kilter with Irish labour law and negotiated wage rates here.

It is time for the Government and the House to be clear and unambiguous. Either we stand with a partnership arrangement or we do not. If we do not that is the end of partnership, but if we do we must act clearly and decisively to protect it. What has Ireland's attitude been to this issue? What is Ireland's attitude to the draft EU directive that would have maintained a proper regime of labour law for ferries operating between EU ports? It is quite clear from the Minister of State's contribution in the House last night that we were against the directive and were part of the cabal that brought it down. The most positive thing the Minister of State could say about the draft directive that would have given these workers rights, was that he was in favour of a study. For good measure, he is still in favour of a study even at this 11th hour. In my judgment, that is hopeless, totally inadequate and disgraceful. Will the Minister enact legislation in advance of the EU directive? He says the directive can be revamped, so it is time we did that. There are precedents for EU directives to be legislated for in advance of the directive becoming mandatory. If we are serious about this issue, if the Taoiseach's tears are not to be crocodile tears and if his utterances are to be seen as anything more than mere rhetoric, we must legislate now. I demand clarity of action from the Government that goes beyond wishes, hopes and exhortations. Are we to make it clear to Irish Ferries and any other maverick employer watching this development that we will not allow this destruction of Irish jobs, this erosion of decades of progress for Irish workers and this edifice of social partnership which has been so positive for the economy to be destroyed? Will we make it legislatively impossible for those who would destroy social partnership to get away with it or will we sit on our hands, shed crocodile tears and do nothing? Tonight we want to hear from the Government exactly what it will do.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The bullyboy style ultimatum that Irish Ferries workers face represents a new low for Irish companies and the tactics Irish Ferries used to coerce people into taking so-called redundancy within a desperate two-week timeframe even though they had dedicated more than 30 years of their lives to the company is a shocking ploy undertaken by what was once a decent company. The behaviour of Irish Ferries throughout this episode has been totally reprehensible including its repeated shunning of one of the most respected industrial relations institutions, the Labour Court, until it thought it had secured sufficient acceptances of redundancy to make any Labour Court ruling obsolete.

The treatment of Irish Ferries workers who carry out a tough and essential job for the nation in difficult circumstances, often requiring them to be away from their families for extended periods and working in stormy conditions has been utterly shameful. Many of the workers have been with the company for decades and were forced into an impossible and agonising position by the company. Workers not accepting the package could have been left with nothing to show for years of service and little hope of gaining other employment in the maritime sector for which they had been trained and to which they had dedicated most of their lives. Constituents I represent were left in this totally hopeless position agonising desperately over whether to take the deal even though they were implacably opposed to the plan by Irish Ferries to discard them and their colleagues on to the scrap heap and yellow-pack Irish maritime jobs forever. The two-week deadline imposed on Irish Ferries workers to accept the deal or receive no redundancy payment was callous and despicable in the extreme.

We have heard no business case for the road down which Irish Ferries has taken our economy. Mr. Rothwell has not made the remotest case for it. Why can Stena Lines with 60% of market share continue to operate with relatively decent pay and conditions for its staff? When the record of Mr. Rothwell's management of Irish Ferries is considered it will be clear that his ineptitude has contributed most to the need for Irish Ferries to cut costs. For example, why did he decide to purchase the London travel agency, Tara, for €6 million — an operation that has since collapsed. Even more serious was the way he dramatically boosted the capacity of the parent company, Irish Continental Group, and bought the massive MV Ulysses while the MV Inisfree was still in operation. He ended MV Ulysses up in dry dock for 15 months while he failed to find a buyer for the MV Inisfree.

When Mr. Rothwell's record is analysed in a clinical way we see error of judgment after error of judgment. While all this was going on and workers desperately tried to cut back and provide compliance with what he required in recent years, the level of Mr. Rothwell's pay continued to escalate even in the light of his own serious management mishaps. Mr. Rothwell got a €374,000 bonus leaving his overall remuneration package at approximately €687,000 for the year or €14,617 per week when the profits of ICG dropped by 17% in 2003. He also has shares in the company worth approximately €19.8 million. While Sparks and King were carrying out their analysis and before they reported we learnt that Mr. Rothwell placed advertisements in the press in Eastern Europe seeking workers approximately ten days before the report was due to be published.

ICG earned a profit of more than €26 million last year and yet one worker, working as a beautician on the MV Inisfree ended up being paid €1 per hour working a 12-hour day seven days per week. How can such regimes be justified against the background of a successful company. During the week it was noticeable that the usual hyenas in the right wing newspapers ranted and raved about the great rottweiler and how we had a new Michael O'Leary on the Irish Sea. While I have no time for the rotten tactics employed by Mr. O'Leary in refusing trade union recognition, when the track records of Mr. O'Leary and that of the so-called rottweiler are considered, the rottweiler is no Michael O'Leary in terms of entrepreneurial flair. On inspection he turns out to be grossly incompetent.

I salute the efforts of our SIPTU colleagues, in particular Mr. Tony Ayton and the ICF international union on the great battle they fought over many years. The latest episode with Irish Ferries has brought a despicable situation to a head. SIPTU has been battling continually against the disgraceful pay and conditions for workers on the Cork to Swansea route where the law of the jungle is allowed to prevail on the open seas and all efforts of the union have been defeated. We have seen the agony suffered by the workers on the MV Normandy and now we are faced with the devastation of the remaining three Irish Ferries ships in terms of an Irish workforce. Throughout this time our Maritime Development Agency and the National Maritime College are educating people to be mariners. As an island nation we need to get out there and look after our trade and passenger traffic on the sea. At the same time we have this yahoo in Irish Ferries seeking to destroy totally what has been achieved by the Government in this regard.

Deputy Howlin referred to the EU ferry directive, which was discussed lugubriously around the European Commission from 1998 to 2004. When we consider the record of those who represented us at those negotiations, Senator O'Rourke, as Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy Woods, as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Jacob, as Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise, and the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, as Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, it is clear that throughout that time Ireland was not on the side of those who wanted to bring about a lawful behaviour in the ferry industry, whereby the pay and conditions of all ferry workers would need to adhere to the minimum standards of whichever port they came from or went to. It is clear the Irish Government played a despicable role in defeating the efforts to introduce a ferries directive.

Last week I had an interesting discussion in Liberty Hall with Mr. Norrie McVicker, a senior Scottish trade union official. He told me about the licensing system the Scottish Executive has introduced into its ferry industry covering routes between the Scottish islands and its mainland. A great hypocrisy in Irish Ferries is that while it attempted to devastate and sack its own workforce it applied for a licence to allow it to ply its trade on one of the Scottish routes.

What about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding the flagging of vessels, which states that there must be a genuine link between the state and the ship.

As usual the Taoiseach has behaved in an outrageous manner in this regard. He stated here that what was happening with Irish Ferries was sharp practice. Why did he not he put his money where his mouth is and introduce emergency legislation to provide a licensing system to adhere to the international convention to bring about a regime such as the European ferries directive? This would have ensured that Irish workers would have decent pay and conditions. This is still the challenge facing the country. As Deputy Howlin said, if we want to continue with social partnership, workers and their representatives must be treated as part of that partnership.

Ultimately it must be remembered that Irish Ferries has received substantial supports from the State. Tonnage tax was introduced primarily to help the company and a number of other carriers on the Irish Sea and it benefited substantially when it was in difficult days in 2002 and 2003 from the operation of tonnage tax. It is obvious that in other areas of accelerated depreciation allowances and taxation matters, Irish Ferries was pushing an open door in terms of support.

I salute the courage of the trade union movement, in particular SIPTU president Jack O'Connor, the head of ICTU, David Begg, Mr. Tony Ayton and Mr. Paul Smith, all of whom have highlighted the dreadful conditions which have applied to maritime workers where they have been yellow-packed, so to speak. On this matter they have drawn a line in the sand. They have rightly told the Taoiseach and the Government that this is a litmus test and that they will not accept outrageous, disgraceful bullyboy tactics used against 600 decent Irish male and female workers. That is not acceptable to this House or to the people. It comes close to being a form of criminal behaviour and must be dealt with by legislation.

The Taoiseach must make a choice. If he wants to have some sort of social partnership for the future, a partnership which has underpinned many of the developments of this country, he must put in place the necessary legislation. A few weeks ago we passed a Bill within an hour when it was necessary to safeguard State property. We are now talking of the people of our State who decent, fine, brave workers. We can also pass a Bill next Tuesday and tell Mr. Rothwell he can adhere to Irish labour law and Irish pay.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Sargent and Boyle.

Are we to stand idly by as slave ships dock in Irish ports, twiddling our thumbs on the quays of Rosslare and Dublin Port as young, foreign, vulnerable workers slave 12 hours daily, seven days a week, on board ferries operating on the Irish Sea and on the routes between Ireland and France? The Government is standing idly by. Tough talking from the Taoiseach is worthless if neither he nor any of his Cabinet colleagues are willing to take action. It will mean nothing to workers like the Latvian crew member on the Irish Ferries ship, the MV Normandy, Ms Oksana Karamjana, who had the courage to speak out on "Prime Time" about her three-month contract working seven days a week for 12 hours per day with no holidays and no days off.

There will be no change where there is no will to change. There have been many times in history when people could have stood back and made excuses. Slavery would not have been abolished. Child labour would persist in Ireland and Europe, Universal suffrage would be but a pipe dream. However, some people had the courage, will and sense of social justice to change those things for the better, to fight for what was right and to make the case for those less able to make it for themselves. They had a sense of justice that this Government clearly does not have.

The members of this Government who shrug their shoulders in the face of the ongoing march of worker exploitation clearly have no empathy with the exploited workers. The Government amendment to the motion before the House tonight includes a line calling on Irish Ferries "to reconsider its proposal to outsource employment on its Irish Sea routes and to examine alternative viability options for these routes". Is that the totality of the Government response? Are we to bow to the will of parasites such as the chief executive of Irish Ferries, Eamonn Rothwell, who creams off in one hour what it will take the new agency workers two and a half weeks to earn?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy must not name people outside the House.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Irish Ferries is a profitable company which is able to pay its chief executive an excessively high salary. The company has chosen to reject an independent Sparks and King consultants report on this matter and is trying only to cut costs.

I ask again when it became acceptable for employers to cut costs by exploiting workers. Irish Ferries has approached this matter in a bullying manner, threatening that the company will offer only statutory redundancy and will exit the Irish Sea routes altogether if its proposals are not accepted within the limited timeframe it has set.

Allowing Irish Ferries to proceed with this plan would be this State's most regressive act in respect of workers' rights. For many workers at Irish Ferries, the deal being presented by management leaves them with no option. Who would seriously expect them to take massive cuts in pay and accept the shredding of their terms and conditions to remain with the company? These workers are being pushed out.

Unlike this Government, Sinn Féin is committed to defending and extending workers' rights and to bringing about an improvement in the living and working conditions of all workers. There are solutions to this problem, and it is inexplicable that the Government is not even attempting to pursue them. Last week in this House, my party tabled a motion which denounced the exploitation of workers on board ferries operating under flags of convenience out of Irish and EU ports. It noted that the draft ferries directive was withdrawn in August 2004 following the failure to reach a final agreement at the Council of Ministers. The Sinn Féin motion sought to get unanimous Dáil support for a demand that the European Commission urgently introduce a European ferries directive to combat social dumping on ferries and set minimum labour standards to ensure an end to the exploitation of workers on intra-EU passenger and ferry services.

I understand from the comments made last night by the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, that the Government has no intention of pressing the European Commission to bring forward such a directive. His comments clearly illustrate that the Government is willing to trample all over vulnerable workers on the premise that it would be uncompetitive for ferries to operate with proper pay and conditions for workers. If it is uncompetitive for them to pay their workers properly, let them go out of business and we can then establish a State ferry company to serve the people of Ireland and the needs of business.

What is being done in respect of the possibility of introducing a licensing regime for ferries operating out of Irish ports? This is a system that has been employed in other jurisdictions. On the basis of what Deputy Gallagher said in his contribution to this debate last night, I am not sure he understands the import of what is on the way at Irish Ferries. He said it was not for him to seek to determine an independent company's business strategy.

This attitude is the crux of the problem. The Government cannot be a disinterested bystander. It must be prepared at all times to intervene to protect the interests of the disadvantaged and marginalised, in this case the interests of workers who are to be subject to the reprehensible working conditions that Irish Ferries wishes to impose. The Government also has a role to play in preventing the displacement of workers covered by employment agreements. I challenge the Government to abandon its laissez-faire attitude, to have a sense of social justice and approach this issue with the will to resolve the situation and ensure no worker on board any ferry operating out of an Irish port is subjected to exploitative working conditions. I urge the full support of the motion and urge that the Government amendment be rejected.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Morgan as a chuid ama a roinnt agus leis na Teachtaí Neamhspleácha agus an Páirtí Sóisialach as an rún seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Tugann an Comhaontas Glas tacaíocht 100% dó.

This is a very important motion because the issue involves the livelihoods of some 600 workers, with those of many others perhaps depending on the outcome at Irish Ferries. It is also a precedent. If ever there were proof that this Government is intent on taking a laissez faire deregulation road, this is it. Its response has basically been to wag the finger and ask people to do the decent thing, but no more. Looking closely at the situation, one sees that not only is the Government refusing to take any decisive action it is also adopting the semblance of an agency rather than a government, doing the bidding of others and operating behind closed doors. It would be interesting to read the text of the discussion that took place at the European Council of Ministers and know the positions of the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Ministers in regard to the European ferries directive. As we do not have that information, we must conclude we are dealing not with a Government but with a secret agency that is not prepared to divulge to the people what was said behind closed doors.

We now have the outcome of that. Not only is there a risk to social partnership, which will have repercussions beyond Irish Ferries, but there is also a risk to the viability of our island economy. We must have dependable maritime routes and a shipping service. If we are dependent on transient workers who are working for a period to send money home, we are depending on people who are more easily disposed of by the more ruthless management structures we have seen come into being. Given that in bad weather shipping cannot travel and over the Christmas period double pay might be too much for the management, we are facing a hit and miss type of service. Approximately 80% of our trade is by sea so it is nothing short of national sabotage that is being condoned by the Government. It must act accordingly, given the gravity of what we face.

French workers stopped the MV Normandy coming into Cherbourg last summer on a couple of occasions due to complaints about low wage regimes. That is a sign of what is facing this Government and it must take responsibility for giving rise to that possibility by being so lax in its response. Most of the staff in Irish Ferries are despondent at the prospect of a Government response. That is unacceptable. In some cases, the workers have such short service that their redundancy pay is nothing short of insulting. The Government should take account of that because there will be a huge backlash from people in general if they believe the Government is allowing Irish workers to be thrown on the sacrificial altar of the unregulated free market.

The Minister must be aware that the flag of convenience is designed to give ship owners freedom from regulation. It is designed to lower health and safety regulations and to be more reckless with regard to environmental obligations, such as the discharge of oil. Ultimately, this situation is in nobody's interest. The Minister must take account of the huge ramifications of simply saying this is wrong but doing nothing about it.

In Germany, there were attempts to introduce a low wages regime, similar to the one under discussion in this debate. However, the underwriters have prevented it. If a ship is registered in Bremen, it must employ German officers and crew to an extent that will ensure there is an indigenous balance in the workforce. That has resulted in a higher standard of shipping. The underwriters have insisted, because their money is on the line, that they will not accept this race to the bottom type of approach.

If the Minister is serious about doing something about Irish Ferries, he should take that precedent on board. He should contact the underwriters of Irish Ferries and ensure that they, who have a commercial interest in this, are not hoodwinked into accepting a situation where there are lower health and safety and environmental obligations. That is something decisive the Minister could do within the law rather than having to run for cover. As happened in the German case, that would result in definite changes and regulations which are badly needed. I urge the Minister to take action.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My father, along with his many other roles in life, was a merchant seaman. The job gave him a sense of fulfilment and much satisfaction. The skills he had were being properly utilised. However, the job had some social costs in that it meant long absences from the family. Eventually he decided on an onshore career. While the comparison is not directly applicable with the ferry workers who work on short haul routes, the skill of seamanship is one that is acquired through experience. The idea that experience can be replaced with a click of one's fingers, that flags of convenience can be replaced and that standards applicable in international law go by the wayside because of the economic convenience of owners is something this Parliament should not support.

As an island nation, we should strive for the highest standards in international maritime law. That includes labour standards for those who work in this industry. People who are caught up in the current situation will find the words of the Taoiseach and the Government mealy mouthed. They have experience of previous situations. They remember what happened with B&I Line and Irish Shipping. They have no confidence in the Government, nor should they have given their experience of the attitude of previous Governments towards this industry.

However, the Irish Ferries situation is different. It has appealed to the public sense of outrage more than the other conflicts in this industry. The fact that this proposal, if it can be dignified by the name, is being made after the situation that occurred with the MV Normandy and the employment circumstances of the Filipina woman, whose name I cannot remember, shows this company will go to any lengths to achieve what it wants in terms of underwriting the bottom line. Everyone is expendable except those at the top. We seem to take pride in the constant mentions in The Economist that this is the most globalised nation in the world but the reality of that globalisation is staring at us with the experience of the Irish Ferries workers.

If the Government has any sense of embarrassment by what is happening, it should put in place the necessary legislation to ensure that this cannot recur. At the same time, it should seek to underwrite the situation by protecting the jobs that are in place and insisting on appropriate standards. If it is not prepared to do that, its words carry no more weight than the words of previous Governments with regard to the previous issues I mentioned.

Hundreds of people are affected, including the additional jobs in the ferry ports. I represent a constituency that has a ferry port. This will have a cumulative effect and this Government will pay a price in the next election. The Government has had opportunities to deal with this issue in the past. It is a situation that has existed for far too long in the case of another ferry company on the Irish Sea route, Swansea Cork Ferries. That was once a State company. It was co-owned by Cork City Council, Cork County Council, Kerry County Council and Glamorgan County Council in Wales. As the company could not run the line productively it was sold to a consortium. The way that consortium has run it since has been by replacing an Irish based workforce with a cheaper eastern European crew.

We cannot allow this policy to continue. We must make a stand. If the Government is not prepared to do it, it is time it stood aside and let others in the House, who are prepared to take the responsibilities of Government seriously, do so.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is not present. I call Deputy Joe Higgins.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I seek clarification, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I am due to conclude the debate. Do we have the next half hour to speak?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You have 15 minutes.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are concluding the debate. We can start now provided we have 30 minutes.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The debate is to conclude at 8.30 p.m. If the Deputy starts his reply to the debate now and the Minister arrives, the Deputies replying will be in possession. Will the Deputies grant the Minister possession?

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will, provided the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gives us time.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputies will have 15 minutes minimum for reply.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister was not here. It shows the contempt which he has shown to this House; he should have been here on time.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about last night?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should not be wasting time now.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is contempt. The Minister is showing the same contempt for the workers of Irish Ferries by not being here.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Order, please.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, please. I was present in the House all day today dealing with issues pertaining to workers' rights. I was in Brussels last evening for the Competitiveness Council.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will have speaking time up to 8.15 p.m.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was told I was due in the House at 8.02 p.m. I was in Brussels yesterday at the Competitiveness Council meeting. I was on Government duty yesterday.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should be here. This is a debate about the future not only of the 540 Irish Ferries workers but a hell of a lot other workers in this country.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please allow the Minister to make a contribution.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs, said yesterday evening, I regret that the House has to debate a matter as unwelcome as the situation at Irish Ferries. This society has laboured long and hard to develop change management and dispute resolution machinery to address the very kind of situation now causing such concern, not only to this House, but also to the wider Irish society. In my comments this evening I wish to concentrate on the employment rights and dispute resolution aspects of the present issue rather than on specific aspects which, of their nature, are particular to the international maritime sector.

At a time when this society has reached what is in effect full employment, it is unacceptable to come across a situation whereby long serving employees of a company are being pressurised into vacating their jobs so that these may then be offered to new employees at much lower rates of pay. The fact that the mooted rates of redundancy payment are relatively generous and apparently attractive to many does not mitigate matters. From the information available, this is a forced sale as the company appears determined to change the conditions of service at all costs. This approach to change management and industrial relations negotiations goes against the widely accepted social norms expected in Ireland in recent years.

Unwelcome as this situation is, I stress that the circumstances are quite unique in that the international rules governing employment in the maritime sector do not allow the application of Irish labour law and the Irish social protection framework to employees of foreign registered vessels serving Irish ports. Regrettable as this situation is, it does not pose a threat to conditions of employment in the wider Irish economy where Irish law and Irish social standards continue to apply and where these can and will be legally enforced.

Governments cannot prevent job losses in individual firms engaged in a market economy. The accelerating pace of change is a sometimes frightening aspect of a dynamic economy. Our response must be to maintain and renew our enterprise base, increase our skills levels and embrace the capacity to be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances.

As a society we should take encouragement from our success in surmounting the challenges of the global trading environment. From 1997, when the unemployment rate was 10.4%, we have achieved the lowest unemployment rate in the EU at 4.2%. This is all the more remarkable when set against the growth in the number of people at work, which has risen by 462,000 to 1.9 million, an increase of 31.4%. However, such hard-won gains are easily lost if we do not continue to upskill and innovate.

Some sectors and companies will do better than others in meeting customer needs and in responding to competition. However, the situation we are now facing appears, from the information available, to be quite different in that what is proposed has been contrived to enable the replacement of an existing work force by a new work force paid at a much lower level.

While Irish Ferries is not the first Irish company to face serious challenges in a rapidly changing economic environment, its proposed response appears not to have been influenced by what has worked for other companies in areas such as investment in people, employee motivation, staff training and flexible work practices. The company has done little to convince the Irish public, who constitute the bulk of its customers in one category or another, that what is proposed is absolutely necessary or, indeed, that it constitutes an effective response in the longer term. Neither is it clear what changes in work practices at the company are necessary to cope with new challenges.

Some comfort, however, may be drawn from the fact that the matters at issue are now to be considered, somewhat belatedly, within our industrial relations bodies which have commanded respect over the years by addressing the most intractable of problems. This process should have begun earlier.

These are difficult issues which are causing great distress and disquiet. It is worth reflecting on how much worse matters would be if we did not have an agreed social partnership model to underpin relationships, support dispute settlement and advance towards our agreed goals. I wish to restate mine and the Government's ongoing commitment to social partnership which, as is stated in the amendment to the motion, will give us a framework for the future, for building on our strengths and for overcoming difficult problems as they will inevitably arise. Our social partnership is adapted to our needs, enabling us to tackle the problems arising from the ever increasing pace of economic and social change, by means of tried and trusted engagement. All have benefited from social partnership; we all have an obligation to contribute to its continuation.

There are those who properly seek to test the continuation of our partnership model. The only tests I would apply are whether it has succeeded in meeting our agreed objectives — it has — and whether it will meet the challenges of the future — it will if all contribute. Social partnership, however, will fail the test if there is not an open and honest engagement now and in the future. There is no place for free riders in social partnership. There is no place for those who take the benefits but do not contribute.

My door is open to further engagement with the social partners on the employment rights framework to ensure proper compliance and enforcement. These are issues of concern to all which can be addressed effectively through social partnership rather than by abandoning it and all its achievements. In that context I have made it clear that the Government is willing to engage with the social partners to deal with the whole area of compliance and enforcement. I have allocated additional resources to the labour inspectorate. If further resources are to be made available I am prepared to discuss with the partners the best model to ensure future better compliance.

The Government is open to reform and change in the existing models. It has been in discussion with the social partners on the subject of the various approaches which might be adopted on compliance and enforcement of the labour laws. We are open to engaging with the social partnership in developing new models if this is the agreed best way forward. I have had some discussions with the social partners who have said it is not all a question of throwing more in resources but there is a case to be made for reflecting on the working of the current model, particularly in the context of any additional resources. The Government hopes to be in a position to engage with the social partners on that issue soon.

It is with the confidence that we can tackle problems arising from our commitment to social partnership that I commend the terms of the Government's amendment, which notes that Ireland has in place a full body of employment rights legislation covering workplace relationships between employers and employees. It notes there is no question of employment rights being in free-fall as they have a sound legislative foundation, active compliance systems and robust institutions for adjudication on rights and resolving disputes together with broad social support.

The amendment notes with concern the initial reluctance of Irish Ferries to engage with the industrial relations machinery of the State and reminds the parties that our dispute settlement system is based on engagement with, and respect for, our adjudication and dispute settlement bodies. To act otherwise will only exacerbate the situation.

The Government amendment notes the institutions of social partnership will continue to contribute to the attainment of agreed goals and that they have played a role in ensuring engagement with the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, a process in which the Government urges all parties to participate fully. The amendment endorses the actions taken by the Government to date in supporting the Irish maritime sector. It also calls on Irish Ferries to reconsider its proposal to outsource employment on its Irish Sea routes and to examine alternative viability options for these routes.

Our amendment to the motion notes the applicability of national and international maritime law in the area of ship registration and the Government's current consultation in relation to ship registration legislation. It also recognises the importance of shipping in the handling of Ireland's imports and exports and the high cost to the economy of any interference with our strategic shipping services.

Finally, the amendment notes the Government's intention to request the Irish maritime development office to carry out a thorough evaluation of the results of existing strategies to promote the Irish maritime sector, including the successes achieved to date and the issues to be addressed going forward, particularly in light of recent developments, and to make recommendations accordingly for consideration by the Government.

Reference was made to my absence this evening, but I was informed that I was due in the House at 8.02 p.m. to speak on this matter. Last evening I was in Luxembourg, attending a meeting of the Competitiveness Council on behalf of the Government. That is why I could not attend the debate yesterday and there was no intended slight to Members. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, has responsibility for labour ——

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are other relevant and more senior Ministers.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Killeen has delegated authority to speak on labour matters and he was the best Minister to be in situ for this debate. I have no gripe with the Members opposite who have put down this motion, which is welcome because it has facilitated debate and there is broad agreement across the House on many of the issues.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Healy, Breen and Joe Higgins.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak in this debate on Irish Ferries and the issue of low pay in Irish society. I thank and commend my Independent colleagues for coming together on this important issue. This is an opportunity to show our citizens that the Independent Deputies from Marino, Kildare, Dublin's inner city, Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Monaghan and Clare can work together in the Dáil on issues like low pay, disabilities, the health service, the environment, the peace process and international affairs. Let the message go out from this House that the Independent Deputies are a strong voice in the Dáil as well as in their local communities. Independent Deputies will be staying on the pitch and will always be a voice for the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and working people generally.

I totally deplore the proposal to sack 543 workers, who are on trade union rates of pay, to be replaced by exploited migrant workers with appalling conditions and wages. Low pay is wrong. It is time to nail this issue to the mast. Some companies and employers want us all to go back to the dark ages. Some Members of this House, including members of the Cabinet, want to see low pay and exploitation of workers here, as part of a right-wing economic agenda. We, as legislators have a duty to challenge them at all levels. We challenge them in this House tonight because the proposal from Irish Ferries will have an effect on the rights of workers in the future, both Irish and migrant.

I condemn the greed driving this strategy, as evidenced by the fact the chief executive of Irish Ferries was paid €687,000 last year while the eastern European workers that the company proposes to employ will be on €3.50 per hour, less than half the current legal minimum wage in this State. I also deplore the support which the employers' body, IBEC, publicly gave to the strategy of Irish Ferries, thus making a mockery of its claim to be in partnership with workers and trade unions.

I challenge the hypocrisy of this Government. It is pretending to be critical of the Irish Ferries proposal yet it paid a grant of millions of euro to that company to make 150 workers redundant on the MV Normandy, to be replaced by exploited labour. I also condemn the growing tendency in the construction sector — in my constituency, at the Dublin Port tunnel works — the meat industry and the hotel and catering trade, to exploit migrant workers at the expense of permanent jobs on trade union rates of pay and with decent working conditions.

I demand that Irish Ferries abandon its proposal immediately. I also demand that the Government introduces legislation to outlaw ship owners and operators using flags of convenience to trample on workers' rights. I urge all Deputies to support the motion, which is about Irish Ferries, low pay and justice for workers.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I repeat my assertion that the Government's handling of this motion last night and tonight is an insult to this House and its Members and to the workers in Irish Ferries. There are at least two senior Ministers involved in this area, namely, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. If one Minister had to be elsewhere, the other should have come into this House to listen and respond to this debate. This is a debate which goes to the very heart of society, not just the economy. It is simply not good enough that a senior Minister was not on the Government benches last night or tonight to hear the voices of the Opposition and Government backbenchers on this issue.

However, this behaviour is typical of the Government's response. The Government amendment is a washing of hands with regard to this issue. This ties in with the fact that, not too long ago, the Government gave a grant of €6 million to Irish Ferries to do exactly the same on the MV Normandy as the company is proposing to do now. It sacked 150 workers on that occasion and now it proposes to sack 543 workers. This Government gave the company €6 million to do that and created a precedent for the action which this deplorable company has now proposed.

The Government's response is also typical, given what we have seen at EU level where the former Minister for Finance and current EU Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, has supported the EU Services Directive which, if passed, will ensure that service providers from other EU countries will only have comply with the pay, conditions and consumer rights legislation of those countries. In effect, we could have services provided by eastern European companies in Ireland, with workers paid at eastern European rates and under eastern European consumer legislation.

The first two points in the Government amendment assert that Ireland has a full body of employment rights legislation which covers the workplace relationships between employers and employees and that employment rights are not in free-fall. The Minister is well aware of the Gama Construction situation, where the so-called legislation that is in place was simply not good enough to deal with the difficulties that arose and the manner in which workers' rights and entitlements were trampled upon. This Government must show some backbone. It must come into this House with emergency legislation to ensure Irish Ferries cannot do what it is proposing. This is a deplorable proposal which, if allowed to progress, will have the effect of a bad apple in a barrel and will completely rot the barrel in a short period of time. It is up to the Government and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to introduce emergency legislation to stop Irish Ferries doing what it is proposing and this should be done sooner rather than later.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wholeheartedly condemn the actions of Irish Ferries in proposing to sack 543 workers who are on trade union rates of pay and established working conditions and replace them with vulnerable migrant workers on appalling wages and conditions. It is a disgrace, in this day and age, that people can be treated in such a manner. The workers in Irish Ferries have been given no choice in that if they do not give up their jobs, they will face unfair exploitation by having their wages reduced and their standards of employment lowered. This is something we cannot accept in our society and the Government should be doing its utmost to protect the rights of our workers. If Irish Ferries is allowed to get away with this disgraceful behaviour then every other company that is driven purely by greed and commercial profits, will seek to behave in the same manner. It is time the Government made a stand against this type of rot in our society.

The Government amendment suggests that there is no question of employment rights being in free-fall in this State. We need only consider what happened to the Gama Construction workers to see if it is telling the truth. There are several other examples of workers being abused and the Government failing to take appropriate action to prevent such abuses. The Government is elected to represent the views of the people, not solely the views of greedy companies driven by profits at the expense of their workers. It is time the Government put a stop to the dismal behaviour and practices taking place in Irish Ferries. The Government is part of the social partnership, as are the workers and citizens of Ireland. Why is it ignoring the partnership agreement and kowtowing to greedy employers who are abusing not just Irish workers, but the non-national workers they propose to bring in as slave labour?

I call on the Government to withdraw the amendment and accept the actions stated in the Private Members' motion, which is a true reflection of justice and fair play.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend strongly the Independent Deputies for making an important contribution to workers' rights in this country by tabling this motion. I find it reprehensible that, apart from The Irish Times, not a single other organ of the millionaire-owned press has covered the debate so far. The exposure of the criminal waste of taxpayers' funds in the health information technology services was widely reported, and rightly so, but what beckons in Irish Ferries is more fundamental to the future shape of this State.

I welcome members of the Seafarers Union of Ireland to the debate and, last night, members of SIPTU Seafarers. That Irish Ferries blatantly proposes to sack 543 seafaring workers who are on established trade union rates of pay and conditions and to replace them with cruelly exploited labour is a shameful indictment of the Government. There has been huge hypocrisy in the course of the debate, including from the Taoiseach. It is time there was a modicum of honesty, including from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Not a single Government spokesperson explained why it subsidised exactly the same sharp practice within the past 12 months when Irish Ferries sacked 120 workers on the MV Normandy and replaced them with the same cheap exploited eastern European workers? If it is wrong now, why was it not wrong then? The Government has not explained this, nor has anyone else. Therefore, the condemnation from the Government benches is hollow. Is it any wonder that the marauding capitalists at the helm of Irish Ferries felt brazen enough to go from sacking 120 workers to sacking 543 workers? It is because they were encouraged by the Government, among others.

What is at stake here is enormous. On a personal level, there is the shattering reality for a whole swathe of young people who have worked on the Jonathan Swift and other ships for four or five years, who have taken on mortgages, started families and built their future on the strength of these jobs, and who now see their futures being devastated because of the greed of Irish Ferries.

If Irish Ferries management is allowed to institutionalise a regime of semi-slave labour, every greed-driven boss in the State will salivate uncontrollably at the prospect of following suit and doing exactly the same, because they will see they can maximise their profit on the strength of exploited semi-slave labour. The fact that the bosses in IBEC, the national organisation of employers, endorsed strongly Irish Ferries and its strategy of exploiting cheap labour, should send a warning shiver through the psyche of every Irish worker and every migrant worker who wants to work in conditions of justice in this State.

Many references have been made to the fact that this is a breach of partnership. It is obvious that partnership is a flag of convenience for big business, IBEC and Irish Ferries to take the benefits when it suits them and kick the workers in the teeth when it does not. IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation did not utter a word of support through the hard months of struggle of the Turkish workers in Gama Construction, despite the fact that what the company was doing was a shame on their industry.

Far from being shocked at Irish Ferries, last night the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources echoed the arguments of Messrs. Rothwell and company. He virtually made the philosophical arguments under which they are carrying out this disgraceful strategy. The proposals of Irish Ferries are based on the morality of the 18th century slavers in modern-day conditions. It threatens with extinction the entire inherited body of maritime experience invested in the workforce. Crucially for Irish Ferries workers, for an island nation to allow this to happen would be recklessness beyond measure. The fact that it is for personal greed makes it outright criminality. Tens of millions of euro have been invested to try to have maritime experience and expertise, but it is being thrown away.

The Government is doing exactly the same as it did with Aer Lingus, which is privatising. Aer Lingus workers should shiver in anticipation because Irish Ferries was a publicly-owned company in the same way as Aer Lingus. Is the fate that awaits these workers, if the bosses get away with it, the future for Aer Lingus workers being privatised at the behest of the Government?

The Irish Ferries workers have been steered by the Government towards the Labour Court. They have been steered towards rocks rather than to a safe harbour. When Irish Ferries proposed 120 workers from MV Normandy, the Labour Court told it to go ahead because it is happening all over the place. What kind of comfort or consolation is it now to refer the 543 workers to the same body if the same rules will apply?

The workers must look to their own strengths. I urge the Seafarers Union of Ireland and SIPTU to use industrial action to ground Irish Ferries to stop this disgusting policy of exploiting vulnerable east European labour. The trade unions in Ireland should take joint action with French trade unionists. There should be Europe-wide trade union action that no modern-day slavers are allowed to ploy the waters of the European Union.

What about the talk we heard during the course of the EU referendums of the charter of rights and workers' rights endorsed in the EU? We were lectured. Where are they in respect of 543 Irish workers who face this threat? Why does the Government not introduce emergency legislation?

A few months ago, the Garda made great play of raiding lap-dancing clubs where young women from eastern Europe were being exploited. Their sisters and brothers face bonded labour aboard the banana boat flagships and are being exploited similarly. Has any garda been sent aboard to check this exploitation?

This type of exploitation is rampant in the meat industry. Irish workers, or migrant workers who want trade union rates, are frozen out of the meat industry. This practice is becoming rampant in construction and other areas. It is extremely serious for the future. If these industries get away with this, especially when there is a downturn in the economy and sharp competition for work, there will be a danger of racism and xenophobia.

The Government amendment is breathtaking in its cynicism and it should be rejected. I urge the entire trade union movement to recruit migrant workers right across the board so no boss can engage in the type of grotesque exploitation planned by Irish Ferries for its ferry services in the years ahead, if the company is allowed to get away with it.