Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Ellis, Cregan, Glennon, Ardagh and Grealish.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remember the days when I was preparing for my leaving certificate, which is a fair while ago but not as long as some other Members. My brother was two years ahead of me and he was studying German. In a recent discussion about the leaving certificate the question arose as to why so many students study Spanish while in the past they studied German. I was fascinated by the answer which was that a few years ago everybody needed to learn German because they had to go to Germany to get a job, whereas nowadays they learn Spanish because they own Spanish holiday homes and have to understand the natives. That reflects the general trend in employment in Ireland. We have moved from a situation where there was no hope of being employed here, to a situation where Irish employment trends have tended to be far better than in many other countries.

My constituency, however, has not benefited from that great gain in employment. Textiles used to be a key area in Donegal, which had the three "F's"— Fruit of the Loom, farming and fishing. One of those, Fruit of the Loom, has gone.

In last night's debate, the Minister of State concentrated on one aspect of the matter and, due to time constraints, I will concentrate on redundancy payments. I understand the exceptional success that our economy is currently experiencing. Of all Deputies, I know we are vulnerable to global pressures, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I also know many companies, particularly in my area, have found they cannot survive in the current environment and have moved on. They have tried market diversification, changing their technology, downsizing or other methods but, ultimately, many of them have decided to move elsewhere.

Our improved redundancy legislation goes some way towards alleviating the immediate impact on such workers. I commend the Department on the intervention of FÁS and other agencies, including the Inishowen partnership, in providing training. They try to ensure people who are being laid off will immediately receive an opportunity to retrain and become employable as opposed to being unemployed.

The Redundancy Payments Act 2003, enacted in May 2003, represented a radical change to the redundancy payments scheme as it existed under the previous 1967 Act. The 2003 Act provided the legislative framework for a significantly enhanced level of statutory redundancy payments of two weeks per year of service, plus a bonus week, which was agreed by Government and the social partners under Sustaining Progress. The old redundancy payment system was restricted to half a week's pay per year of service up to the age of 41 and a week for every year over 41, together with a bonus week.

Of all constituencies, mine has understood this concept very well. Unfortunately, we have probably availed of redundancy payments more than most other constituencies. In as much as we have done so, however, we have also availed of the Department's life-long learning schemes and have thus benefited from the impact of such training schemes. I commend the Government for having introduced such schemes.

I wish to cite two examples of many concerning losses in the textile industry. Fruit of the Loom paid 3.5 weeks on top of the statutory redundancy requirement until that requirement was changed in the 2003 Act to which I referred. Since that change, the redundancy payment amounts to two weeks per year of service but Fruit of the Loom had given 2.9 weeks as an ex gratia payment. The company willingly extended and entered negotiations with the unions to ensure a fair deal would be achieved for all staff following the change in statutory requirements, so that current staff were treated as fairly as those who went before. There has been a gradual reduction of staff at the company from several thousand to several hundred, and most employees will be gone by 26 May. The company's approach to redundancy was based on fairness and respect for those who served it so well.

As regards the 67 staff who are being paid off by Clubman Omega, there is currently no obligation beyond the statutory one. However, given that most of these workers have worked at the company since they were 13, the management and board of directors should look to the example of Fruit of the Loom. They should recognise the wonderful work their staff have done and ensure the 67 workers get the Labour Court's recommendation. The staff produced a quality product whose value was recognised by everyone. Recognition of the staff is very important and the company should rise to the challenge, as did the neighbouring Fruit of the Loom factory. They should respect the workers who have been loyal, dedicated and competent.

In most of the situations I am dealing with, the companies have not closed. They have moved elsewhere and the companies are still trading. People will be familiar with situations where workers come from outside Ireland to take over our jobs but in Donegal our jobs are going elsewhere for others to do. I call on Clubman Omega's board of management to listen to people on the ground and respect the wonderful work their employees did. That respect should be reflected in their financial settlement.

John Ellis (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When I first entered this House nobody would ever have dreamed of tabling a motion such as the one before us. At that stage, unemployment was at such levels that all we did was export our young people. I am delighted that in the course of the past 20 years the employment market has improved enormously. We probably have the highest minimum wage in the European Union, which is being protected by the Department. That is as it should be. The Minister has clearly stated the Department is in full control when it comes to ensuring all labour law is fully adhered to.

There have been attempts to breach labour laws in recent years but the Government has successfully prevented any circumvention of the minimum wage. I have no doubt that in future the Government will be even more vigilant than it has been over the past few years.

It is great to be able to say that we are as close to full employment as one can be. The country is almost at full employment. In addition, the economy is growing at a fast pace, which means we will probably need up to 50,000 migrant workers per year for the next four or five years. I have no doubt the Government will ensure the rights of such workers are protected. We must also ensure, however, that people working here are fully compliant with the relevant labour laws. In recent times, problems have arisen with people who are double jobbing. Some non-nationals are prepared to take on a second job in the black economy and work for less than the minimum wage. A certain amount of this activity is beginning to surface in parts of the country but it must be stopped. It has been brought to my notice once or twice in my constituency. When I brought the matter to the notice of the relevant Department, action was taken to bring to an end the situation whereby people were able to operate on both sides of the Border by either holding down two jobs or by paying tax on one side of the Border while drawing social welfare on the other. However, the wider problem will no doubt continue as long as the current state of affairs continues.

We must ensure that we protect the workers' right to receive fair pay for a fair day's work. The minimum wage has probably been the most important development for workers here. It is only fair that the minimum wage should set a minimum standard, but the number of people on the minimum wage is much lower than many people might expect. Recent Government moves to remove people who are on the minimum wage from the tax bracket are to be applauded given their effect on the general public and those who are on low pay.

However, the competitiveness of our workforce also needs to be considered. The only way we can remain competitive is by ensuring we have total agreement between unions, workers and employers. Social partnership has proved to be one of this country's greatest assets in promoting employment through the years.

We need to move on from the motion. Although Opposition parties have the right to put down such motions, the motion before us does not recognise the great progress this country has made both on employment and on labour inspectors. I agree we need to ensure that any mismanagement in the pay or conditions of employees that does not respect our regulations should immediately be brought to the notice of the Department with responsibility for labour. When I had to do that on a previous occasion, the Department was more than efficient in dealing with the problem. I believe the motion is unnecessary.

I compliment the Minister of State on the way in which he is helping to run the Department.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like previous speakers, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on such an important issue and to commend the Government for its efforts over many years now to uphold and enhance workers' rights by way of legislation and regulation.

We have continued to improve compliance among the minority of employers who knowingly fail to fulfil their statutory obligations to their workers. Only a small minority of employers are cowboys who would break the law continually but, in light of recent media reports on worker exploitation, more must be done to ensure that we offer the best possible protection to all workers. We need more stringent enforcement.

Regarding the Government's record in upholding the rights of workers, I particularly welcome the introduction of statutory rates of pay, such as the minimum wage, the introduction of limitations on the number of hours employees can work, the implementation of health and safety provisions, the establishment of statutory redundancy pay and the substantial improvements that have been made in carers', maternity and adoptive leave. This Government has introduced a comprehensive range of legislative and other measures aimed at significantly improving the terms and conditions available to workers in the Irish labour market, including measures on health and safety, part-time and fixed-term workers and national minimum wage levels as well as substantial increases in redundancy entitlements and improvements for carers and parents. However, the Government must continue to take measures to improve compliance so that the minority of employers who fail to fulfil their statutory obligations to their workers are flushed out and penalised.

Having mentioned leave for carers, I remind the House that the Carer's Leave Act 2001 came into operation on 2 July 2001. The Act's main purpose is to provide employees with an entitlement to avail themselves of up to 65 weeks of unpaid leave if they need to offer personal care to someone who requires full-time care and attention.

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

Chicken feed is all that the Government offers carers.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The people who provide such care are to be commended. In looking after their elderly parents or relatives in their own homes, they save the State an enormous amount of money because the person who is sick is not required to enter a hospital or other care institution belonging to the State. The maximum leave entitlement will soon be extended to 104 weeks — practically double the current level — and I welcome that very much. The Act fulfils the Government's commitments in budget 2000 and in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness to introduce legislation to give effect to a carer's benefit payment and a parallel right to carer's leave. I welcome that important development.

The Government also introduced the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which came into effect on 1 September 2005. The primary focus of this major new legislation on safety and health in the workplace is on the prevention of deaths and injuries in the workplace. Unfortunately, workplace deaths still take place——

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

The total last year increased by 20.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——but we need to ensure that we have the necessary personnel in place. We need to increase the numbers of such personnel to ensure that workplace deaths are kept at a minimum. Safety at work is paramount, so it is most disquieting to see the workplace fatality statistics that have emerged in recent years. The Act is a serious wake-up call to employers who do not do enough to prevent accidents in their places of employment.

Workers also have a duty not to endanger themselves or others and to be alert to dangerous situations. The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 marks a new era in workplace health and safety because it sets out to shift the focus away from viewing health and safety as an add-on. Health and safety must be integrated into a management system that involves workers and employers acting together to achieve a safer and healthier working environment. The issue is about the behaviour of both workers and employers combined and backed up by enforcement.

Unfortunately we rely perhaps too much on enforcement. As a smoker I sometimes smile to myself when, after all the hullabaloo about the introduction of the smoking ban, we smokers were found to be very compliant people in observing a law that is self-policing. If every other law here was similarly observed, we would not need enforcement. However, unfortunately, in every walk of life no matter whether we are talking about roads or building sites, we need enforcement because people choose to be negligent and careless. Some people are not prepared to——

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

Deputy Cregan is blaming the workers, but such fatalities are not the workers' fault.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the reason we need enforcement, unfortunately. We might prefer it if that was not the case, but enforcement is necessary. We require more enforcement to cut down the number of workplace deaths.

Once again I commend the Minister of State with special responsibility for labour affairs for the excellent work he is doing and I wish him well in his endeavours in the future.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How much time have I remaining?

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

About 11 months.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, about 16 months.

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

Deputies speaking to the amendment have 13 minutes in total.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Deputy Howlin to the House. For a minute I thought that a major debate on the subject of labour would be left entirely unattended by the party that professes to act on workers' behalf.

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

Our party can act on their behalf now.

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

Is Deputy Glennon suggesting that when he comes out of the tent in Galway he is looking after the workers' interest?

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see that Fianna Fáil's partners in Government are to have a tent in Punchestown for the first time this year.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope that people are ready.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure Deputy Grealish's colleague will give way to him in a minute.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must be doing something right if the Progressive Democrats are taking a leaf out of our book. For the benefit of Deputy Howlin, I should clarify that we have 16 months, not 11, remaining.

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

Deputy Glennon seems to know the Taoiseach's will. He did not know the Taoiseach's will last week.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Howlin seems very interested in the Taoiseach's will. That we are discussing tonight's topic is very much a testimony to the will of the Taoiseach in particular and to the model of social partnership he introduced.

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

I had thought the motion was tabled by Sinn Féin.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Other parties in the House could learn a great deal from what the Taoiseach has achieved.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Government's amendment to the motion. I particularly want to deal with clause seven of that amendment relating to the Government commitment to the social partnership model as the most appropriate mechanism for advancing these issues in the interests of both employees and employers. I have no doubt, and I imagine not many people in this House doubt, though that is tempting fate and a few may now emerge, that social partnership has served this country well. Deputy Ellis referred to the minimum wage as being the most important element of the current advantages for Irish workers.

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

What about Irish Ferries?

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While the minimum wage has been an important development, it is the product of the social partnership model we have had for the past decade or so and has been championed by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. He has driven it and nobody has been to the forefront of the social partnership model more than he has. It has been the model on which the boom in our economy is based. It is the way forward. It involves all the relevant parties around the table and all the representative groups.

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

It does not.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Comments were made earlier about immigrant labour and we are aware of the difficulties that have arisen, but the day is not too far away when the immigrant representative groups will be around the table at the social partnership talks because they are now such a significant element in our economy and workforce. They are to be embraced and we must extend the model of co-operation and inclusion to them. That has not been done up to now but will come about in the not too distant future.

I understand the social partnership talks are under way. There are always difficulties in these situations but hopefully, as in all other years, the talks will prove successful and the contribution of the Government, in particular the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, with the Ministers of State, Deputies Michael Ahern and Killeen, in the current structure, is to be highly commended.

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

What is successful?

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am hearing a voice from the far side. It is just a low rumble.

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

I am asking what is successful.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to commend the Government counter-motion to the House.

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

I thank the Sinn Féin party for introducing this motion and for giving us an opportunity to show the House and the country how well the Government, labour and management have worked together to create an economy of which we are all proud, which has no equal in the western world.

The Sinn Féin motion is to a great extent an attempt to split all the parties which have made the economy such a success — labour, management and Government — to create conflict, but for what purpose? We are to consider that labour should be in one department and enterprise in the other, to create a head-to-head situation of total conflict. As well as putting management, enterprise and capital in one department, Sinn Féin wants to tax them to the hilt. The party wants to ensure that corporation tax is increased, as was articulated very well in the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis over the weekend, where it was stated that tax is good.

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

We spoke of a 5% rate.

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

By splitting and creating enemies between labour and enterprise, Sinn Féin would ruin the economy built up in such a careful manner by the Government over the past ten years.

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

Someone has to stand up for workers.

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

Increasing taxation is anathema to the development of the economy of this country for the future. Low taxation rates are the reason the economy is doing well, employment has gone up from 1 million to 2 million over a short period, gross national product has greatly increased and a great deal of foreign direct investment has come into Ireland. That is why there is so much more money in the pocket of every worker in this country and the quality of life has improved so much for so many people. Sinn Féin wants to create a head-to-head conflict with the workers on one side and business on the other, and to let them battle it out. It wants to create strikes and have days lost at work. All the ingredients for total disarray in the economy are included in what Sinn Féin is talking about today.

Sinn Féin should join up with Deputy Joe Higgins. He is the Socialist Party in the House.

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

The Taoiseach is a socialist.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Joe Higgins is the ideologue. He has the Marxist-Leninist attitude which Sinn Féin has. If Deputy Joe Higgins allowed Sinn Féin into his party, there would be some humour in it because Deputy Higgins has some humour, can laugh occasionally and make some very interesting comments in the House.

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

Workers' rights are not a laughing matter.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In this regard Sinn Féin has only one recipe, for economic disaster. I ask the party to rethink what it is doing and how it is doing it, to allow this country continue in the way it is going, with the Government it has, for further success in the economy in the future.

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

The Government is trampling on workers' rights.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank my colleague for sharing time with me. Many of the important points have been made so I will focus on four brief points.

I understand that Sinn Féin tabled its motion because it seeks an end to what it calls the current regime of weak regulation and poor enforcement of workers' rights. With a claim like this, it is difficult to know where to start. Sinn Féin recently said it was poised to act as king-maker after the next general election. If its considered review of the current regime of workers' rights in this country is so weak and poor, the thoughts of the party being king-maker in any time in the future is enough to strike fear into the hearts of voters across the country. Imagine if that is the standard of a legislative review the Opposition would bring into government. What about statutory rates of pay?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is a bit of inequality good for the economy?

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the limitations on working hours, our extensive health and safety provisions, statutory redundancy, carer's, maternity and adoptive leave? Those opposite need to get real.

In 1997 there was 12% unemployment in this country. At that time, Sinn Féin, rather than addressing serious economic issues, was busy avoiding the condemnation of killings and bombings.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy and his colleagues were busy censoring us.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the Tánaiste became Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 1997, the 12% unemployment rate was tackled by the Progressive Democrats and our colleagues in Government, Fianna Fáil. The rate is now down to 4%. There is almost full employment and we are creating more jobs than we can fill.

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

The Deputy was not born at the time.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The low unemployment rate exists despite the welcome presence in Ireland of thousands of foreign people working on job permits and more than 100,000 PPS numbers being issued to citizens of the EU accession states. Is this the hallmark of a regime of weak regulation and poor enforcement of workers' rights? Nearly 2 million people are now working in our economy. The initiative was taken by the Tánaiste when she was in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Since then, by means of the policies of the Progressive Democrats and our partners in Government, Fianna Fáil, more than 500,00 new jobs have been created. Take-home pay for the average industrial earner has increased by more than €11,000 since 1997. That is an increase of 80%.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By how much has the price of houses gone up?

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The figures I mention represent a great achievement by the Government. If Sinn Féin got into government we would have serious problems in this country. The Opposition seems to have amnesia in respect of working standards in this country. In 1997, when the rainbow Government's Minister for Enterprise and Employment was Deputy Bruton and the Minister of State at that Department was Deputy Rabbitte, nothing was done on pay matters. In contrast, it was their successor, the Tánaiste and former Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who introduced the minimum wage for the first time in Ireland.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy knows that is nonsense.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It has become the maximum wage.

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

What about working standards?

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The concerns about working conditions and lower pay in particular were reflected in the contributions of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, and previous speakers.

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

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment's time is up.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The concerns are largely due to the difference between the average industrial wage in Ireland, which is approximately €30,000 per year, and the annual rate of the national minimum wage of approximately €16,000.

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

The Deputy must conclude.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should conclude.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

His time has concluded.

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

I must call the next speaker.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Government's achievements do not need to be explained in the House. I compliment the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on his excellent work.

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

Are the PDs representing workers' rights? The Deputy should give us a break.

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

Deputy Howlin without interruption.

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

I apologise.

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

Debating with a colleague of the House once on radio per day is enough. May I share time with Deputy Lynch? The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might indicate when the ten minutes I am taking has elapsed.

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 will take the unusual step of commending Sinn Féin as this is a worthy motion.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

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

Serious debate should take place on disestablishing the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I say this not only as someone who was in favour of but negotiated the two programmes for Government that established the original Department of Enterprise and Employment, bringing together the old Departments of Labour and Industry and Commerce. In the early 1990s there was a view, which I shared, that bringing together the two sides of the employment equation would strengthen both the rights of workers and labour law and create synergy between enterprise, industry and labour protection.

It worked rather well when Deputy Quinn was the first Minister for Enterprise and Employment. The Department has since expanded by including the area of trade, which is extraneous and places an additional demand on the Department. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with special responsibility for trade and commerce, Deputy Michael Ahern, is present and I do not suppose he regards trade as extraneous but it is a different division within the Department, which is very broad.

When Deputy Quinn was the Department's Minister the synergies worked as he was a former Minister for Labour and understood the importance of the long-standing worker protections. Unfortunately, as the Department developed, the ethos of enterprise smothered the notion of worker protection, which has become a secondary subset within the Department. This clearly happened while the Tánaiste was Minister in the Department. The labour protection regime, the development of workers rights and examining workers in a continuous way have taken secondary roles to the development of enterprise, the views of big business and the arguments of the Department's industrial division. That this situation has continued under the Tánaiste's successor in that Department, the current Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, is a great pity.

This motion is worthy of serious consideration because, after a period of ten or 12 years, it is time to evaluate whether the merging of the Departments has worked. Telling the House that, as the Department exists, it should be defended or it has done good work and should not be examined is a knee-jerk reaction. I met with the managing director of Microsoft today, who is doing work for the Department in relation to small business. He told me his company examines its structures every year and makes significant structural changes every three years to check the structure is giving value for money. Microsoft is one of the most successful corporations in the world. Should we not examine whether we are structurally administering the country well? If a three-year time lapse is appropriate to a company as important, strong and successful as Microsoft, we can give reasoned consideration to a proposal such as this for a major Department.

We have a very different and, in many ways, more positive country than in 1993, particularly in the climate of an extraordinary change in the workforce. Over 2 million people are working in the economy. The workforce is multi-ethnic and much more complex in types of employment and, as such, needs are greater. With the Minister of State, I supported and amended the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 as it passed through the Dáil and know there are issues of managing, looking after, structuring and policing a much more varied and complex labour market and labour force than existed at the time the various Departments were brought together. It is timely we should examine this matter.

I am disappointed in the Government's amendment, which states the Government is responsible for everything from the proper regulation of "statutory rates of pay" to "limitations on hours worked". These laws have been promulgated by all Governments for over 30 years. The major breakthrough in most of these laws was made by a former leader of the Labour Party who departed for Fine Gael subsequently, Mr. Michael O'Leary, one of the most successful Ministers for Labour this country has ever seen, certainly in legislative terms.

Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He started in Fianna Fáil.

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

Successive Governments have built up the body of law. It is not fair or appropriate for the current Government to pretend it is responsible for all of these measures.

I take issue with the notion there has been a substantial increase in the number of labour inspectors. If they are all at work today, there are 31 labour inspectors. The full complement has not been available to make inspections recently. A total of 31 inspectors to police a workforce of over 2 million is little short of hopeless and I would not blow my trumpet in this respect were I the Minister or Minister of State.

The Minister of State may have met the Hungarian Minister for Labour Affairs when he visited Ireland a fortnight ago. Hungary, with a population approximately twice that of Ireland, has 190 inspectors. Half that figure should be an appropriate regime to monitor our labour law but we only have a fraction of it, approximately a tenth of what is available in a country such as Hungary. We have much to do.

I ask the Minister of State not to have a knee-jerk reaction to a concrete proposal from the Sinn Féin Party and Opposition benches. The United Kingdom had Departments for labour and industry but now has a new Department for Work and Pensions, which is not a bad combination, to deal with such issues as pensions. The Pensions Ombudsman, who is not a radical socialist, Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyite, indicated there are thousands of construction workers in Ireland not covered by a pension. This is a scandal. We must police and enforce this area as, in many instances, the law is being broken or at least stretched by pretending people are self-employed when they are clearly employees.

There is much work for a Department of work and pensions. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has enough to do on the pensions side of the matter, which will be one of this country's most critical issues in the years ahead. It is a stand-alone issue and, with labour affairs, could merit a full Cabinet post. This possibility should be examined and I put it on the agenda for fair comment.

A motion should not be rejected out of hand because it comes from this side of the House. The knee-jerk reaction of giving out scripts to a number of backbenchers, who have not read the motion, rejecting the motion should not be allowed. One day, this will be a Parliament like real parliaments, where an executive does not rule all and there is debate in which people listen, hear and make rational decisions on the basis of rational argument. We had hoped the committee system introduced in the Houses would achieve that. The Chamber would be more relevant if contributors thought there was someone listening on the Government side of the House. Journalists might cover debates of this sort if it there was meaningful discussion. Even though they may not be the right solution, practical suggestions should be rationally engaged with, their merits debated and international practice examined to see if we, like major corporations, constantly evaluate how effective are the structures we put in place. If we do this as a parliament we will take a major step forward.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Sinn Féin on the motion before the House. In Government the natural instinct is to defend against any suggestion. It is ridiculous that both Government parties claim responsibility for all good things in life. The Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil both suggest our achievements are due to their respective Ministers. This is ludicrous and not the behaviour one expects of adults.

This debate should be more broadly based. Assigning responsibility for labour to one department is the beginning of the debate and we should then discuss how we develop and treat people working to sustain this economy. Approximately 2 million people are employed in this country and some 600,000 are members of trade unions. The latter are mainly in the public sector, working for Government agencies. It is estimated that 200,000 private sector workers are members of trade unions. How is the workforce of more than one million unorganised workers protected? They have very little protection.

Sinn Féin Deputies referred to fundamental rights of workers. Despite the development of certain rights over the years, there are no fundamental rights. Concerning women, the former Minister, Michael O'Leary, was the pioneer in insisting on equal pay and rights for women. A former Fianna Fáil Minister, Pádraig Flynn, introduced the directive on part-time workers which fundamentally affected women.

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

Certain measures are referred to in the motion.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to realise that a combined effort brought us to this point. The difficulty is that the 1990 Act, introduced by Deputy Bertie Ahern, who is now Taoiseach, provided major protection for employers. It defined how workers could picket and outlawed secondary picketing but never asserted the right of workers to join a trade union or granted a trade union an automatic right of recognition for negotiating purposes. As long as that further step is not taken, the majority of workers will receive little protection. The courts will determine that the 1990 Act gives no protection to workers who are not organised members of a recognised trade union or a trade union with a licence to negotiate. Not all trade unions have such a licence. We need a department with responsibility for labour, with the sole remit of protecting workers and enhancing the way we treat workers.

Financially, what happened at Gama Ireland was a major scandal but it was minor in terms of workers in this country.

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

Hundreds more such cases exist.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see young people leaving school to work in supermarkets or the lower ranks of other industries after the leaving or junior certificate and they are treated appallingly. They do not know their rights nor who to turn to for protection. They are not aware they do not have to accept the conditions or the terms of abuse they encounter in their job. Thankfully, we have many good employers in this country but the only way to define the position and treatment of workers is to assign a single department and Minister with responsibility for the development of that area.

I cannot understand how there is a Minister for Agriculture and Food as this Department incorporates the conflict between the producer and the consumer and should be separated. Given the current economic situation, we should have a separate department with responsibility for labour. If the economy needs to move forward at a certain rate, people will be abused and denied their rights.

We must insist on the protection of current rights but also on advancing rights and examining the needs of the future. Pension coverage is a major problem and we should consider the position of workers in the building industry such as masons, plasterers or people who work on scaffolding. Can these people continue to work into their 50s? They cannot as they are physically incapable of doing so. We should assist such people to retrain and seek other employment in their 40s. No Department considers the development of this area and how to make progress. We need to offer a support payment to people who cannot continue in the industry in which they are employed.

The position of women working in McDonald's in their late 50s and 60s is not feasible, although this takes place in America. We must examine how to communicate the need to retrain to people in industries that will not support workers until pensionable age. We should support such people and a department with responsibility for labour would examine such measures.

Society is changing. I remember a time when the unemployment rate in Cork was 18% and 27% in one area. None of us wants to go back to the bad old days; we remember them. Now that we have the time, space and money, however, we should consider the introduction of further rights and greater protection. We should have an information campaign to inform people of their rights or how to demand and protect them where such people cannot rely on organised labour such as trade unions. We should also inform them of their entitlements and how to avail of them. That is what a Department with responsibility for labour would do.

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

I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Cowley and Boyle.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this important motion on the rights of workers and the urgent need to change the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment radically and have a stand-alone department with responsibility for labour affairs. This is a progressive motion and a sensible proposal. All Members in the House who claim to be on the side of workers should support it. I welcome the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate on working people and the radical changes taking place in society.

The Independent group will always stand by working people and the weaker sections of our community. We support the right to be free from exploitation, the right to fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for the worker and his or her family, and equal pay for equal work. We support the right to form, join and be represented by trade unions, to negotiate contracts of employment and to engage in industrial action. We also support the right to work in safe conditions that are not harmful to health and well-being. We also support the right to access lifelong learning opportunities and vocational training and re-training. That is my position and that is the ethos of this motion.

While we are discussing the rights of working people, it is important to remind the Dáil of the 25th anniversary of the Stardust fire tragedy in Artane in my constituency. A group of 48 young people died in the terrible fire, and more than 240 were injured and maimed. These people deserve the truth and justice. It is not good enough for Mr. Butterly to try to open a pub on the site. It shows complete insensitivity and is a gross insult to the people of Coolock and Artane. They are now involved in a seven-day picket on the premises. I urge everyone to support them in their hour of need. They deserve a proper investigation and the truth. It is up to all Deputies to stand by these decent working families.

If we are serious about the debate and the protection of workers' rights, this Dáil will stand behind the Stardust family. It is not only a local issue, but an issue of people's and citizens' rights, public safety and an end to the abuse of our people. We have had enough talk and spin. Now is the time for action for the Stardust families. I commend their bravery and integrity and I support their efforts for justice.

Regarding the motion, it is important to end once and for all the issue of low pay in this country. Low pay and exploitation mean poverty and unhappy families. Low pay is an insult to a person's human dignity. There is no logical reason for this situation in this day and age in this prosperous country. Let us examine the reality of low pay in many communities. In many disadvantaged areas, 52% of children are not ready for primary school. We must have a war on educational disadvantage.

We now have a situation where children still live in homes where heating and dampness are issues, and 26% of children display significant conduct problems before even starting school. In disadvantaged areas, 20% of children have major eating difficulties and 31% of children constantly miss school. Those are issues of poverty and low pay and we must face up to them.

I welcome the section of this motion which calls for a separate, stand-alone Department of labour affairs, the prime responsibilities of which should be the improvement and enforcement of employment rights and entitlements, the protection of labour standards, industrial relations, the promotion of health and safety at work, the implementation of policies to improve work-life balance and promote lifelong learning and the establishment of an Oireachtas joint committee on labour affairs.

These are sensible and progressive ideas. They are also a vision of the way forward for our island. It also shows the need to develop an all-Ireland economy and any system or political border that divides workers is doomed to failure. I urge all workers, North and South, to unite to build on the Connolly vision for this country. This, the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising, should be used as an occasion to build and develop a new Ireland built on unity, equality and justice for all our citizens. I want an all-Ireland that is rid of sectarianism and racism. I also want an Ireland that is big enough to accommodate difference and respect diversity. What a boring place it would be if we were all the same.

When we are discussing workers rights and the need for more protection, we must also focus on workers' money and how taxpayers' money is spent. We have seen examples. In my area, €200 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on the Dublin Port tunnel, and that is on the overruns.

I commend Deputies Ó Caoláin, Ferris, Ó Snodaigh, Crowe and Morgan on bringing forward this motion. I also commend their leadership and magnificent work on the peace process and on trying to build a democratic peace settlement on the island. This motion is about workers' rights, equality, justice and creating a new and radical and caring society. I urge all Deputies in the House to support the motion.

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

Will the Deputy get our number?

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last November, RTE's "Questions and Answers" featured as a panellist a leading economist from one of the banks. One of the issues under discussion was the outsourcing of employment by Irish Ferries. The views expressed by this particular panellist, who would formerly have been seen as a pillar of society, meant he was seen as an extreme radical. He was completely at variance with public opinion on the issue. He lectured people, asking what did they expect in a free market and that we needed cheap labour to keep the economy going. Essentially, he stated that the economy was the be-all and end-all.

The public have an expectation that the project was not only about building an economy but was about building a society. The efforts of people remaining longer in education, sitting in traffic jams and putting off demands for better public services were made as sacrifices necessary for nation-building. We were told for decades that we could have all these improvements when the inflation rate was under control or when the budget deficit was addressed. The reality is we are now at that point.

All the efforts were made to make the economy good enough to allow us have all of the other things. Now we are told that what we need for the booming economy is cheap labour to keep it going. Is it any wonder that the public is concerned about what type of vision for society is held? Is it any wonder that ordinary working people are concerned about their standard of living and what kind of future their children will have?

There is no doubt that concerns exist regarding living standards and the exploitation of workers. I meet indigenous Irish workers who strongly state that while they do not make an issue about working side by side with non-national workers, there must be equality of standards across the spectrum. I meet people who have a difficulty in gaining employment because other people are given an unfair advantage by virtue of the fact that these standards are not met, such as where accommodation is built into the wage rates and people work as security on building sites.

I walked behind the Polish workers in the demonstration in December. They were seeking equality of rights with their Irish working colleagues. The number of people who picked them out and applauded them along the line was noticeable. The eastern European countries were not interested in the short-term gains of the services directive but wanted better standards across Europe. They did not see the country of origin principle as advantageous to them in the long term. I have read much of what was said from that source.

I am pleased to see the lifelong learning aspect of the motion. Yesterday we saw people in Meath lose their jobs. While people who have worked on a production line for a long time require lifelong education, there is little support for part-time education, for example there is no grant assistance. This makes it difficult for people to keep their skills up to date or to diversify. That must be examined. I welcome the aspect of the motion that debates the issue of lifelong learning and the call to increase the labour inspectorate and create a Department of labour. In the past ten years it has never been needed more than it is now.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Sinn Féin on bringing forward a motion which is sensible and must be supported. Exploitation of people is an important issue that deserves our attention. The right to work in safe conditions that are not harmful to health and well-being can be taken for granted. I had experience of this when, as a student, I went to the US on a J1 visa and got a job with the Union of Students of Ireland Travel. I worked in upstate New York where I was asked to spray-paint dozens of beds without a mask. Although as a pre-med student I should have known better, I did it for several weeks before somebody told me I should wear a mask. We must ensure that standards are enforced. The difficulty is that so much lip service is paid to labour law by the State. If we were serious about this the situation of the Gama workers, where people continued to seriously jeopardise employees' health, would not have arisen.

Ireland sent its people all over the world as economic migrants because they could not make a living in this country. This country failed them but they went overseas and supported us. They were exploited by people in their host country, particularly the UK, and by their own people. We have to live with that history. We have many thousands of migrants from Poland, Latvia, and other countries which, like Ireland, are economically deprived and cannot support them. They have to go overseas and send money home to support their families. We have seen many documentaries on areas in eastern Europe that are depopulated. That population lives in places in the west of Ireland such as Tuam. It is good that this country can give them a living but we have a duty of care to them. We have a duty to ensure that vulnerable economic migrants are treated well, not as many Irish people were treated when they went abroad to populate the world.

The idea of having a separate Department of labour affairs is eminently sensible and important. The motion mentions the conflict in having a Department that covers both enterprise policy, including competition policy, and labour affairs. It is not logical that the Department that promotes enterprise is also the policeman that ensures that people are not exploited in the attempt to make profit. The idea of people before profit is a noble objective and puts the interests of people before the interests of money. If the market were allowed to proceed without labour legislation the result would be slave labour. We saw that in the race to the bottom by Irish Ferries. I support this motion and the idea of a joint committee that would shadow such a Department of labour affairs.

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

Tonight's motion tabled by Sinn Féin Deputies is timely and important. Labour issues are to the fore. Considerable controversy attaches to them and whether they are dealt with adequately or within the time necessary to prevent further controversy. The core of the motion seeking that the Department of labour affairs be decoupled from its present home finds favour with the Green Party. It is unfortunate the Taoiseach has not found time to contribute to this debate because his first Cabinet position was as Minister for Labour. Other Members have held that position, including Deputy Quinn. When the Minister and I were teenagers a representative of our constituency, Gene Fitzgerald, held that office so the Department of Labour existed not too long ago and for particular reasons.

Over the course of recent Governments the linking of enterprise, trade and employment, and the ordering of the titles in the Department, has shown the priority that labour issues are given. I accept that the personality of the incumbent Minister drives whether labour issues are given prominence. This Minister might give it more than his predecessor. Existing infrastructure relegates labour issues in the Department. Whether labour affairs should be the responsibility of a stand-alone Department is a matter for further consideration. In the UK labour affairs are linked with the Department of Education. I am not sure whether I would make that link but the logic is that education is a progression of a person's work life, linked with the concept of lifelong learning.

It is obvious that other approaches are taken to this issue. As a result we should be open to giving labour affairs the prominence they deserve. The major problem with how labour issues are dealt with is the lack of appropriate infrastructure. A stand-alone Department or one that is more prominent in a new home would tackle issues such as greater numbers of labour inspectors. The main issue is ensuring that migrants to Ireland are not treated unfairly and that their conditions of work are no less than what the law allows for Irish citizens. This motion allows for such a change to take place.

The second element of the motion regarding a separate Oireachtas committee on labour affairs should be relatively uncontested. It is confining in this Dáil that the Oireachtas committees mirror Departments. In previous Governments there was a multiplicity of specialised committees, which can be more effective. An Oireachtas committee dedicated to labour affairs with members who have a specific interest in that area would be better at examining legislation before the House and airing current issues to ensure that situations like those in Gama and Irish Ferries do not catch us by surprise but are anticipated in the proper framework.

Before migration arose the issue was part-time work by people aged between 16 and 18 years and younger, which was illegal. The monitoring of this by the Department was far from adequate. There were only four inspectors in the entire country and I suspect that has not changed much. When talking about issues affecting labour affairs as of now, it is partly a question of which Department should be responsible. More importantly, it is a question of resources and personnel so we do not have the ongoing problems, which the Minister and the Government are not dealing with adequately.

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

I am delighted to participate in this debate, which is about several important issues that fall within my responsibility and that of my colleague, Deputy Killeen, Minister of State with responsibility for labour affairs. Deputy Killeen has given the House a detailed account of measures introduced by this Government to secure and improve employment standards and the quality of our work. I do not intend going over the same ground. However, I totally disagree with the idea that the Department should be broken up again. That would be to go back 20 years.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We did not expect the Minister to applaud us.

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

The integrated response is a good one in terms of enterprise, trade and employment. These are inter-related issues. It is extraordinary that a motion of this type, particularly in terms of its incredible negativity, is such a distance from reality. Some 94,000 jobs were created in the economy last year and people want to break up the Department that is responsible for enterprise. I am not saying the Department was responsible for all the jobs, but it has nurtured the right environment, on the basis of the Government's structures and policies. I will deal with the issues in terms of international conventions.

The UN's Declaration of Human Rights was raised in the context of the motion, which suggests we are failing to live up to the State's obligations under Article 23. I wonder if, in reaching this conclusion, the Deputies have familiarised themselves with Article 23 which deals with the right to work, freely chosen, under just conditions, protection against unemployment, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to just payment for work, supplemented where necessary by social protection measures and the right to form and join trade unions.

Are the Deputies suggesting that their constituents do not enjoy these rights and that the State has not put in place, under successive Governments, a formidable legal framework to give effect to those rights?

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

There are men in jail tonight for that.

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

Does the State, through the Labour Relations Commission, the Labour Court, the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the Equality Tribunal and the civil courts, not seek to ensure compliance by employers and to provide effective means of redress in cases of non-compliance? In this area, as in other aspects of our provisions, the Irish framework reflects the provisions of the broader EU social protection framework, which is perhaps the most extensive in the world. Several Governments over the years passed legislation supporting these rights in this House. Yet we are here listening to allegations which show a total disregard for the realities of Irish society. I do not believe such cavalier charges can be taken seriously.

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

A woman was banned for wearing a badge.

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

I want to draw attention to Articles 6 and 7 of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights cited in the motion. Article 6 deals with the right to work freely and avail of vocational guidance and training. Article 7 deals with the right to paid work with fair and safe conditions and with special regard to equal pay for equal work. Article 8 deals with the right to join and carry on the business of a trade union.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about Dunnes Stores?

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

I must invite the House to consider if we live in a society which does not uphold the principles and secure the rights set out in the preceding paragraphs. Is it really suggested that we live in a society which does not enjoy full employment, together with vocational guidance and access to training?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it is.

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

It is not true. The Deputy's position is wrong, and factually incorrect. Do we not inhabit a State in which workers enjoy free collective bargaining, social partnership arrangements, a very active and well funded Health and Safety Authority and a solid corpus of equality legislation supported by a dedicated Equality Authority and Equality Tribunal? With regard to trades unions, not only do they have legal protection and the right to organise and carry on their business but they are also an integral part of long established and very successful social partnership arrangements. Can all of these developments have missed the attention of our colleagues who proposed the Opposition motion? Similar considerations apply to the citing of Articles 1 to 10 of the European Social Charter, promulgated by the Council of Europe. I will cite these provisions briefly so Deputies can appreciate their range and content. I think the House will find that they have a familiar ring to them: Article 1, the right to work; Article 2, the right to just conditions of work; Article 3, the right to safe and healthy working conditions——

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

Some 20 people died last year.

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

——Article 4, the right to fair remuneration; Article 5, the right to organise; Article 6, the right to bargain collectively; Article 7, the right of children and young persons to protection; Article 8, the right of employed women to protection of maternity; Article 9, the right to vocational guidance; and Article 10, the right to vocational training. All these provisions are very adequately addressed by legislation passed by this House and supported by institutions and services voted for and paid for out of moneys raised in taxation.

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

They have never been enforced.

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

The Convention on Migrant Workers was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1990 and it entered into force on 1 July 2003. The convention has been open for signature and ratification since December 1990. However, to date only 34 states have ratified it. No European Union member state has as yet signed or ratified the convention, nor has any indicated an intention to do so.

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

Why does the Minister not lead the way?

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

Deputies will have the opportunity to reply to the Minister.

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

The Government must first ensure that domestic law is fully in conformity with the agreement in question. I have a detailed script which I will not have time to read into the record of the House, but I hope it may be taken on board. If Ireland were to ratify the convention it would appear that significant changes must be made across a wide range of existing legislation, including authorisation to stay and to work, education, training and integration, family re-unification, social security, transfer of income, taxation, housing, health and medical care and electoral law. These changes would also have implications for our relations with our EU partners, none of which has signed or ratified the convention or signalled an intention to do so.

The tabling and content of this motion demonstrates the clear unsuitability of Sinn Féin for office——

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

Did the Minister even think about the motion?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a good motion.

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

——and the degree to which the economy would be significantly undermined if it ever got into power.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our opinion of the Minister's suitability for office far exceeds his opinion of us.

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

The electorate should be aware and be wary of the alliance that has been witnessed here this evening.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should leave that to the PDs.

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

Just think what Sinn Féin could do to employment in this country. It would frighten the horses.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They do not need help from the Minister in that regard.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to share time with Deputy Ó Caoláin.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There has been a number of instances over the past few months that illustrate the extent to which some employers are willing to challenge trade union organisation. Not only that, but they are prepared to challenge workers' rights on basic issues such as the right to join and be identified with a trade union.

Last weekend one of the guests at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis was Ms Joanne Delaney who was sacked by Dunnes Stores for the heinous offence of wearing the badge of Mandate, the union of which she is a member. While no doubt it is claimed by the company that she was in breach of uniform regulations, it is clear that wearing union badges has not hitherto being invoked by Dunnes as an excuse to discipline an employee.

We are entitled to ask, therefore, whether this is part of their testing the water prior to further assaults on union members. If so, is Dunnes in fact planning to undermine union organisation as part of a plan to worsen wages and conditions and introduce what are fondly described as "flexible working patterns"? That indeed has been the pattern in other disputes where companies have deliberately provoked their workforces in the hope that this will allow them to replace union members with workers on lower wages and weaker terms of employment. That was clearly what was behind the Irish Ferries dispute and we had an even more blatant example with Doyle Concrete which disregarded Labour Court instructions and displaced an entire unionised workforce to take on non-national workers on lower wages and of course with no union membership. That company has now decided to close rather than obey the court. We have not seen the company's executives locked up in Mountjoy as workers are tonight. It is a disgrace that workers are locked up while employers such as Doyle Concrete can get away with it.

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

The wrong people are in jail.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last weekend Mr. Gerry Adams, at the Ard-Fheis, welcomed new communities of all nationalities to our country. We in Sinn Féin reject racism and discrimination in any form. It is good that many people are coming here to work. Immigrant workers are not the problem. The problem is unscrupulous employers who exploit immigrant workers for low pay and poor conditions along with the failure of this Government to protect the rights of all workers, whatever their nationality.

Local authorities are unwittingly contributing to this by giving contracts to contractors who sub-contract work to non-national workers who are being exploited and paid below the minimum wage, yet nothing is being done about this.

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

There are not enough inspectors.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The examples of Irish Ferries and Doyle Concrete emphasise the need for safeguards to be put in place to prevent employers attempting to emulate the tactics of the likes of Independent Newspapers in 1913. That need is even greater now that many employers see the existence of a large pool of potentially cheap and unorganised non-national workers from the new accession states as the means to undermine hard-won rights and conditions.

There is also a need for tighter legal safeguards for union organisation. While the 1937 Constitution recognises the right of workers to join a union, it places no corresponding compulsion on the employer to actually recognise this. In other words, if an employer can find a way to break a union there is no law to prevent this.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 and Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, while providing options for unions that have been refused recognition by employers, do not deal with union recognition but with disputes over improvements in pay or conditions of employment.

The legislation explicitly excludes arrangements for collective bargaining. It is unlikely, therefore, to improve union access to workplaces where the employers are determined to stay non-union and consequently is likely to have minimal influence in reversing the declining union density in the private sector.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil le gach duine a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht ar an rún tábhachtach seo. Buíochas ach go háirithe do na Teachtaí atá ag tacú leis an rún. Tá bagairtí nua ar chearta nan-oibrithe; in Éirinn, ar fud na hEorpa agus ar fud an domhain faoi láthair. Má táimid chun na cearta sin a chur chun cinn caithfimid tosú sa bhaile agus tá an rún seo mar chuid de na hiarrachtaí atáá dhéanamh ag daoine ar an eite chlé agus i ngluaiseacht na gceardchumann chun cearta a chosaint agus a chur chun cinn.

I thank all Deputies who have taken part in the debate on this important motion, particularly those who have expressed support. A number of Members pointed out that this is a timely motion, and so it is. Established rights of workers are under attack in Ireland, Europe and throughout the world. Rights, freedoms and protections built up through the efforts of generations of trade unionists are being eroded. We must ask how that is possible. One of the main reasons is that the basic right to be a member of a trade union is not vindicated. While the right exists in theory in this State under the 1937 Constitution, in practice, employers are allowed to deny workers that right by making non-membership of a trade union a condition of employment.

An RTE television programme on Monday last recalled the Dunnes Stores anti-apartheid strike of the early 1980s. I attended that picket line many years ago. It was a shining example of selflessness on the part of young workers who refused to handle the fruits of apartheid and who, after a long and gruelling strike, succeeded in forcing an Irish Government to impose an embargo on South African goods. For anyone who thought those days of solidarity and popular protest were over, they were proved wrong with the widespread support for the Gama workers, the Irish Ferries workers, the Rossport Five, Joanne Delaney and many others in recent years who have stood up to exploitation. These include immigrant workers who have been disgracefully treated by certain employers, something every Deputy, including me, has seen in his or her constituency. This must stop.

Let us be clear. The department of labour affairs that is proposed by Sinn Féin would not be a substitute for trade union organisation and a strong grassroots union membership. Rather, it would be an essential step to ensure that the full range of labour rights, including the right to trade union membership, are totally vindicated.

I point out to Deputy Perry of Fine Gael, who misinterpreted this point, that we are not calling for trade union membership for employees to be mandatory. We are most definitely calling for mandatory recognition by employers of the right to trade union membership for all employees. That is something Irish workers have been struggling for since the 1913 lockout, yet employers are still allowed to bar unions from their workplaces. That practice must end.

I note that while Deputy Perry supported the tone of the motion on behalf of Fine Gael, his party colleague, Deputy Pat Breen, stated that the party could not support it in its totality. Unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity this evening to hear which parts they object to — there is none of them present in the House. I am sure many of their prospective partners in the Labour Party would be interested, as would many trade unionists, not only listening to this debate but hopefully following the contributions subsequently, to know what were the parts with which Fine Gael was not happy. Why are its Deputies not in the House? Is it the case that when the vote is called they will be sitting on their hands on these issues regarding workers rights, as they have done many times in the past?

I wish to address a number of comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, on this motion last night. He referred to the "deep and unwavering commitment of the Government in the area of employment rights". I have the highest regard for the Minister of State, and I say that sincerely, but, with respect, that is quite untrue. The lack of commitment was evident during the Irish Ferries dispute in particular when the Government showed little interest in intervening to protect workers' rights.

The Minister of State mentioned the commitment to statutory rates of pay, yet the minimum wage is not even being enforced and wages of some skilled workers are being dragged down to minimum wage levels.

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

They are the second highest in Europe. Deputy Ó Caoláin should acknowledge something.

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

Deputy Ó Caoláin should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He spoke of a commitment to health and safety, yet, as my colleague, Deputy Crowe, pointed out last evening when the Minister was not present, there was a 42% increase in workplace deaths in 2005 in comparison with the 2004 figure. This disturbing trend must be reversed.

The Minister of State also spoke of substantial increases in redundancy payments, yet statutory redundancy payments consist of only two weeks pay per year of service and workers over the age of 66 have no entitlement whatsoever. On work-life balance there is not an entitlement to as much as one day's paternity leave, while maternity leave falls far behind European norms and parental leave remains unpaid. Increasing the staff of the labour inspectorate to 31 inspectors did not constitute a substantial increase, nor is it anything near what is required.

Is this what the Minister terms a deep and unwavering commitment to workers' rights? That is no record of which to be proud. The bottom line is that existing employment rights legislation is not being enforced and will never be enforced until the labour inspectorate has the resources and the number of staff necessary to carry out ongoing spot checks on employers to assess compliance levels. There must be an immediate increase to bring the inspectorate up to at least 75 in number.

Difficulties also exist in terms of the Labour Court. When a worker seeks to take an action for unfair dismissal, for example, he or she is confronted by the fact that it takes a minimum of about six months for a case to be dealt with by the Labour Court. I am reminded of the case of the three NCT testers at the Monaghan test centre. The Government is taking no action to deal with the anti-union actions of certain employers. Deputy Ferris referred to the case of Joanne Delaney. What has the Minister done on her behalf? The Minister is shaking his head from left to right — mostly to the right.

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

He is washing his hands.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many of the multinationals who have come into the State in the past decade are virulently anti-union.

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

Does the Deputy want us to close them down?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the construction sector there is a strong belief that some trade union members are being black-listed from building sites because they are trade union activists. Tonight three men are in Mountjoy Prison for so-called contempt of court for picketing a building site. This is unacceptable. How many employers have served a day in jail for creating unsafe working conditions that have led directly to injury or death? We know the answer to this question is none at all.

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

It is scandalous.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A previous Sinn Féin Private Member's motion strongly opposed the privatisation of Aer Lingus. We pointed out then, as we do now, that privatisation invariably leads to lower pay and poorer working conditions. This is the most serious concern in respect of the imminent privatisation of the Great Southern Hotel Group. These State sell-offs are another form of downsizing as far as workers' conditions are concerned.

The Government presents the case that it has successfully blended enterprise and labour in one Department as if it were as easy to blend these two competing, but not always opposing, interests as it was to mould the current Government coalition. Deputies Ardagh and Grealish performed the well-practised Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats two-handed reel of when in doubt, attack Sinn Féin. Unlike their lookalikes, Podge and Rodge, they impressed no one. Their performance was undazzling and as bankrupt as their arguments against the motion presented by Sinn Féin Members.

The reality experienced by workers includes legislation passed but not enforced, growing numbers of their colleagues suffering injury or death due to lax attitudes to health and safety on the part of employers and a Government which waxes lyrical about social partnership while it refuses to intervene as employers intimidate and blacklist workers who wish to be represented by unions. Workers' rights are not an add-on or an optional extra which can be enjoyed at the whim of employers or when the economy allows it. They are basic requirements of a healthy economy and a just society. The right to work is a basic right and we especially remember the workers at the NEC plant in Ballivor in County Meath.

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

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will conclude. Sinn Féin is committed to defending and extending workers' rights. This is why we wish to see the establishment of a stand-alone department of labour affairs and a stand-alone Oireachtas joint committee on labour affairs. This is the reason we tabled this motion and the reason why we and other progressive Deputies will stand and vote for it tonight.