Vol. 1052 No. 6
57. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the number of times the Labour Employer Economic Forum sub-group on collective bargaining has met in 2024; and if he can provisionally indicate when the action plan on collective bargaining coverage to be presented to the European Commission as part of its transposition of the EU directive on adequate minimum wages will be published. [16747/24]
I welcome the new Minister and Minister of State. I very much look forward to working with them and congratulate them both on their appointment. I know it is a very proud time not just for themselves but for their families, their local party and their communities. I congratulate them both and look forward to having a good working relationship, as I had with their predecessors.
My question is a very straightforward one. The Minister will come to know over time that it is an issue I take a very keen interest in and one I have followed very closely. It is in regard to the Labour Employer Economic Forum sub-group on collective bargaining. I follow very closely the work of that group.
I thank Deputy O'Reilly for her question and her kind wishes. We look forward to working with all Members across the House. As we have demonstrated in previous Departments, working relationships are very important. I and the Ministers of State, Deputies Higgins and Calleary, will do our very best in our respective roles.
The Labour Employer Economic Forum's sub-group on employment and enterprise has two groups under its auspices dealing with collective bargaining matters. The first group, chaired by the Minister of State with responsibility for business, employment and retail, is concerned with the implementation of the LEEF high-level working group's recommendations on collective bargaining. The second group, chaired by my official, is tasked with the preparation of an action plan on enabling conditions for collective bargaining as required by the directive on adequate minimum wages.
The implementation group on the high-level working group's recommendations on collective bargaining met on 16 November 2023. Several of the recommendations of the high-level working group's recommendations on collective bargaining are already being implemented, as follows: the Workplace Relations Commission, following a request from the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, is now engaged with the social partners to draft a code of practice for good faith engagement; the Workplace Relations Commission has also been in contact with the social partners regarding the training recommendations in the report; and the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, wrote to the chair of the Labour Court on 18 January requesting that the court consider preparing rules, in consultation with the social partners, to govern the use of technical assessors by the court. The Labour Court has also been asked to consider whether the membership of the joint labour committees should be reviewed.
Two proposals arising from the LEEF high-level working group's recommendations on collective bargaining require significant legal changes: good faith engagement at enterprise level with statutory penalties; and the roles of the Labour Court if a joint labour committee cannot convene due to non-participation of one of the parties. My officials are now engaging on these issues in more detail with the Office of the Attorney General.
I welcome the Minister's reference to the significant legal changes because we had an engagement with IBEC and the ICTU at the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. During the course of that engagement, IBEC was very much of the view that no legislation would be required or very minimal legislation - I think it actually said “No” - whereas Congress took the view that legislation was very definitely going to be required. I note the Minister's predecessor had been a bit noncommittal on the issue but, because I feel it is inevitable, I think we will move towards a stage where there is going to be significant legislative change. Sinn Féin is committed to giving workers the right to organise because that is their very best bet, the safest they can be and the most power they can have at work.
Will the Minister indicate when the action plan on collective bargaining will be presented to the Commission as part of the transposition of this directive? I know we have had a change of personnel but a lot of work has been done on this and the momentum is there. It can be done and it should be done quickly. The Minister might give me an update on when it will be presented to the Commission.
First, with regard to the legal issues, we were working with the Attorney General and additional external advice has been sought on the potential issues arising from it. We will keep the impetus going in that regard.
With regard to Article 4 of the directive and the 80% threshold, we are required to prepare an action plan in line with the directive and work is under way at the moment in that regard. The deadline that has been established by the Commission is that it has to be prepared and presented by the end of 2025. We in the Department absolutely believe that we will meet that deadline so work is under way on it currently and we will publish a draft plan in due course.
I will look at my calendar later and see if I can find what date “in due course” is. We need a date and if the Minister is not moving towards a date, that is a difficulty. The last time we discussed this, the previous Minister advised me that no targets had been set in regard to the 80%. That is a grave mistake. If the Government is not driving the targets, there is going to be drift. He also said, quite bizarrely – I am putting this back on the record because I challenged it at the time and will challenge it again if it is said - that “There is not the same demand for union membership and representation in some sectors of the Irish economy as there is in others.” Actually, all of the studies and surveys find that people are very positively disposed towards trade unions and they will join trade unions if the opportunity is presented to them. Indeed, I restate my opinion, which is that the best way to protect your rights and entitlements at work is not just to join a trade union but to be active in that trade union. The setting of targets has to be part of this process and dates are essential because the potential for drift is quite serious.
We are very much committed to this process. Obviously, just a week into the job, I am trying to go through and evaluate all of these issues, but we are absolutely committed in the first instance. The Deputy can see that demonstrated by the establishment of the LEEF group chaired by the Taoiseach and the sub-group chaired by our own Department. We are working at pace on the issues that have come forward and I listed the five points where substantial work is under way. With regard to the directive, we will meet the target. We will have it on time, which is very important in regard to the action plan, and we are very much committed to the right to collective bargaining as a country. The Government has established that, in addition to the myriad of supports we have put in place for workers. The Government has been a very progressive government if judged objectively in terms of the supports it has put in for employees up and down this State. We will continue on that trajectory and support them in every way we can.
58. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he remains committed to the agreed pathway for the implementation of a living wage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17196/24]
First, I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, on his appointment as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, on her appointment, and the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, on his reappointment. Congratulations to all.
I ask the Minister if he is still committed to the roadmap and the pathway to a living wage, as set out by the Low Pay Commission in its annual report in mid-2023 and that he will not demur from this commitment.
I thank Deputy Nash for his kind words.
As the Deputy will be aware, in 2021 the Low Pay Commission was asked to examine the programme for Government commitment to progress to a living wage and provide recommendations on how best to achieve this commitment. The Low Pay Commission’s recommendations were received and considered and in November 2022, the Government agreed that a national living wage would be introduced and set at 60% of the hourly median wages, in line with the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. The Government announced that this would be achieved by incremental adjustment to the national minimum wage.
The introduction of a living wage is an important step the Government is taking towards eradicating low-wage employment for all workers. The first step towards reaching a living wage was the 80 cent increase to the national minimum wage from 1 January 2023, to €11.30 per hour. This was followed with the significant 12.4% increase of €1.40 to the national minimum wage, which came into force on 1 January 2024 and increased the minimum wage to €12.70 per hour. The Low Pay Commission has estimated that the minimum wage in 2022 was 50.9% of the median hourly wage, increasing to 51.8% in 2023. The Commission estimates that the €1.40 increase in the 2024 national minimum wage brought the minimum wage to 55.1% of median hourly wages. The Low Pay Commission will continue to make annual recommendations on the appropriate rate of the national minimum wage, and the increases required in order that by 2026, the minimum wage will reach the target of 60% of hourly median wages. Its recommendations on the 2025 national minimum wage are due in July.
The Government is on track with the implementation of the living wage but it is also important to acknowledge the challenges the enterprise sector has faced over the last number of years, and I am aware of the concerns of businesses as they deal with the rising cost of doing business. I am bringing forward a range of packages to help small businesses in adjusting to the increased costs of the proposed measures to improve working conditions in Ireland and to help improve their cost effectiveness.
There is no doubt that some small businesses are experiencing difficulties at the moment. There will be challenges for businesses to wean themselves off the kind of corporate welfare that has been available over the last few years to maintain the viability of businesses. However, this should not be done at the expense of low-paid workers. We have a problem with low pay in this country. More than 20% of all workers are on low pay. This is not sustainable and is not something that we should stand over. The establishment of the Low Pay Commission in 2015 was one of the most important institutional changes to protect the interests of low-paid workers that society experienced in many years. I have no doubt that the Low Pay Commission, given the importance of its work, will be a bulwark against attempts to undermine the interests of low-paid workers. I stand over the statement I am about to make. I do not believe that in the absence of the Low Pay Commission, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil would have increased the minimum wage to the point it is at now. Moreover, I would not see a situation where we are moving towards 60% of median hourly wages in terms of real living wage into the future, if it were not for the Low Pay Commission. I ask the Minister to restate his commitment to the pathway to the living wage and not in any way undermine its importance and independence.
The Low Pay Commission was established by a Government of which my own party was a member. This shows we are very committed to employees right across the economy. On an objective analysis, last night we voted for auto enrolment to ensure pension rights to those right across our economy. The most vulnerable will benefit. We also introduced sick pay on a statutory basis, which will also help those on the margins of society. If we look at any objective analysis, from 2015 the national minimum wage has increased by 46.8%. That really shows how much we value workers right across our economy. This Government has done a huge amount more in terms of protected leave and the right to remote working. The latter may not affect so many on lower wages, but we are doing everything we can to improve conditions for workers. We know that productivity, morale and retention of staff are key. That is coming across in the economy as well. Equally, we have to respond to the challenges faced by businesses. I will be doing that in the days and weeks ahead working on a package with my three colleagues.
The ambition of the new Taoiseach to reset the messaging for Fine Gael and to go back to basics, as some people have described it, is worrying for working people across the country. This is especially the case if it is framed through the lens of worker versus business. That should not be the case. Quite frankly, however, that is how the mood music is being set. This is especially the case with comments made in recent weeks about, for example, the question of the extension of modest sick leave proposals to bring us in line with EU states against whom we like to compare ourselves. These are modest changes, yet some employer groups are saying, with a straight face, that the national minimum wage should not go up by any more than the rate of inflation. This is unacceptable to me and I hope it is unacceptable to the Minister. I would like the Minister to put on record his views on the proposition that some employer bodies are saying that, as far as they are concerned, the minimum wage should not increase by any more than the rate of inflation. What is the Minister's position on this proposition?
I am in a Department where we have to balance the rights of employers and protect employees. I have to protect the rights of consumers and balance that with the rights of businesses. We have to be in a very strong position to protect all those across our economy. I would say, demonstrate by evidence. This Government has shown huge evidence. We have been a reforming Government, in line with protecting employees right across our economy. Very significant changes and reforms have been made and we will take advice from the Low Pay Commission. That is the mechanism put in place to advise me in July in relation to the continuation of the trajectory and how much of an increase should be brought forward. We will consider the advice and take it very seriously. The Government, so far, has always accepted the recommendation from the Low Pay Commission. It is best to work through that mechanism. I will always say our commitment can be demonstrated by our actions. The rate of inflation has halved since November 2022, down to 4.1%. This shows that the policies are working. Two budgets prior to 2024, we put €12 billion into our economy protecting workers businesses, workers and the most vulnerable. Sustainable policies enable the Government to do just that.
59. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will engage with stakeholders regarding the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill 2024. [16748/24]
In 2006, the OECD recommended the abolition of mandatory retirement in Ireland. I have brought legislation forward on this, as have my colleagues, Deputies Claire Kerrane and John Brady. Recently we had stakeholders present at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment to discuss the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill. We heard from people who had made submissions but who do not feel that their voices have been heard. They feel that the Government is simply eliminating mandatory retirement up to the age of 66, which is where the pension has been set. We believe it should be set at age 65. People feel that their submissions were not heard and that the Government is pressing ahead with legislation that will not deliver for all workers.
I thank the Deputy for her kind remarks and I look forward to working with her. The purpose of the general scheme of the employment (restriction of certain mandatory retirement ages) Bill 2024 is to implement a key recommendation related to mandatory retirement age, which is included in the Pensions Commission recommendations and implementation plan.
As recommended by the Pensions Commission, this proposed legislation will deliver a statutory provision which will allow, but in no way compel, an employee to stay in employment until the age at which they can first access the State pension, which is 66. The measure will improve older workers’ adequacy of income in retirement and reaffirm our long-standing policy to support longer and fuller working lives.
The membership of the Pensions Commission included representation of workers, employers, civil society, academics, and those with technical and policy expertise. The commission held a full public consultation process and a virtual stakeholder forum. The report of the commission is a comprehensive and authoritative report based on various analyses of population, labour force and expenditure projections; an examination of international approaches; and responses to an extensive consultation process with stakeholders.
In the interests both of older people and future generations of older people, the Government took the time to carefully consider the recommendations.
There was a series of discussions on the various options and recommendations through the Cabinet committee structure. The views of the joint committee on social protection and the Commission on Taxation and Welfare were also taken into account.
In addition to the extensive consultation carried out by the Pensions Commission in producing its report, my officials have consulted with employer and employee representatives through discussions at LEEF. They have also met separately with stakeholders, on request, to brief them on the policy proposals. Furthermore, all other Departments have been consulted to identify any professions where a statutory retirement age below the State pension age is provided for in law. Officials have also engaged with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to ensure that full consideration is given to employment equality aspects of the proposal.
The Deputy asked if the Government will engage with stakeholders and the answer is "Yes". We are engaging with stakeholders and will continue to do so.
Yes, but will the Government listen to them? That is probably the question I should have two minutes on.
We heard from a range of stakeholders, some of whom pointed out something that was quite interesting, namely, that at the last election, 13 Deputies were aged 65 or over. During the course of this Dáil, 12 Deputies will attain the age of 65, and fair play to them, but nobody is asking them to retire. Nobody is asking them to retire at 66 years of age either. It is hypocritical that we would pass legislation in here providing that people have to retire at the age of 66 but not the people pushing the button to make that decision.
The Government knows the Sinn Féin position on this. We believe that people should have the right to retire at the age of 65 but notwithstanding that, we also believe that mandatory retirement should be abolished, at least up to the age of 70. It is interesting to hear what stakeholders say about mandatory retirement. They say it normalises ageism and excludes older workers from normal managerial processes. Effectively, people are let go just because of their age. It is estimated that 4,000 people may experience mandatory retirement at 65 every year. Others will be forced to retire at different ages but age is not a reliable predictor of capacity. Research clearly shows that mandatory retirement has a deeply negative impact on the level of control that people feel over their own decision-making.
The Department needs to engage with those stakeholders who have a very clear, evidence-based view and to listen to what they are saying. The Government must recognise the fact that at the age of 65, an awful lot of people cannot continue working, and that needs to be accounted for, but those who can work on should be facilitated.
As the Deputy may be aware, it is not possible for the State to provide that a retirement age below 66 in all circumstances will be illegal. The reality is that certain roles may require a lower retirement age, often for the health and safety of the workers in question. That is especially so where people have very physically demanding jobs, for example. It is also critical for public-safety-critical roles and that is a matter of contract between employers and employees. The Pensions Commission recognises that and Members in this Chamber also need to recognise it. Having said that, this legislation will make it very difficult for employers to enforce a retirement age below 66 unless they can justify it and the WRC is there, as a matter of recourse, in cases where workers may experience issues in that regard.
The reality is that we need to provide for the limited cases where a lower retirement age is required. For the vast majority of people, this legislation is going to give them choice, autonomy and the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to retire at 65 or continue working beyond that.
The Pensions Commission also recognises in the case of people who work in certain occupations, like hairdressers who are on their feet all day and those working in construction and retail, that by the time they hit 65, they feel they have done their shift. Many do not want, and nor should they be compelled, to work past the age of 65. That is contained within the Pensions Commission report. At least we won that argument with the Pensions Commission and we may yet win it with the Government.
The OECD recommended the abolition of mandatory retirement. It noted that it is a commonplace practice that is inconsistent with strategies to remove obstacles to working in older age. Effectively, mandatory retirement operates as a barrier. When we engaged with Age Action Ireland, the Retirement Planning Council of Ireland and others, they told us that mandatory retirement creates a sense among workers of not being valued because they will be out the door at a certain age, regardless of their capacity to do the work or of their work record. An arbitrary age is decided upon and people are excluded from the normal managerial process, in which case they would be entitled to appeal but where it is in their contract, they cannot do that.
The Minister of State should give consideration to meeting and engaging with these groups. The Department should examine the legislation again because it is inherently ageist, inasmuch as it only adjusts the pension age very slightly when what it should do is remove mandatory retirement.
The Deputy and I agree that when it comes to certain occupations, it may not be appropriate to have indefinite periods of working life and that is what this legislation provides for. There are complexities where there are existing contracts between employers and employees, particularly in the private sector, that specify a mandatory retirement age. What we are doing here is making changes in that regard.
Regarding engagement, my officials met IBEC, ICTU and SIPTU representatives to discuss this last October and again as recently as three weeks ago. We are consulting widely on this and are listening to stakeholders. We are going to make improvements in this area for both workers and employers.
60. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment further to Parliamentary Question No. 37 of 8 February 2024, for an update on his Department’s engagement with the Department of Foreign Affairs with a view to developing a new business and human rights action plan and implementation body; the number of meetings held to date by the stakeholder forum; the dates of same; the terms of reference of the stakeholder forum; the expected timeline for the new national plan on business and human rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16851/24]
Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an mbeirt Aire nua. Is pribhléid amach agus amach é. Guím gach rath orthu sa dá ról. Cinnte, ní bheidh aon drogall orm iad a chrá le ceisteanna.
My question specifically relates to the new business and human rights plan. Four years after the previous plan came to an end, we are still waiting for that plan. Why has there been a delay? I understand the forum has been established but no terms of reference have been set out. Given the importance of the human rights plan, I ask that the Minister would give me some dates today.
Déanaim comhghairdeas le mo chomhghleacaí nua freisin. Cuirim fáilte roimhe chuig an Roinn. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as an gceist agus as suim a léiriú san issue seo.
We recognise the importance of businesses having due regard to issues of human rights. There is a strong expectation in Irish society that our values are reflected in the way we do business. Businesses are responding positively since Ireland launched its first national plan on business and human rights in late 2017. Ireland became the 19th state in the world to develop a national plan.
In December 2021, a review of the implementation of that plan was brought to Government. It found that over 91% of commitments under the plan were achieved. Stakeholder engagement is an integral part of developing the second national plan. The first step in this process was the public consultation that the Department of Foreign Affairs and my Department published last summer, which sought the opinions of interested stakeholders to inform the development of the second plan. Eleven submissions were received from a wide range of interests. The second step was the creation of the stakeholder forum, which convened on 14 December 2023. The forum brought together representatives of Government, civil society, trade unions and business as well as officials from my own Department. The purpose of this initial meeting was to draw out common themes that emerged from the public consultation process and to seek clarification or elaboration of certain recommendations with a view to establishing the likely scope and content of the new national plan. A meeting with officials from other relevant Departments will take place before the stakeholder forum is convened again. These meetings are expected to take place shortly and I will inform the Deputy when they take place and give her the dates in advance. Preparatory work by officials is currently under way.
The new plan will cover a multi-annual timeframe, as did the first plan. It will build on the achievements of the first plan, while also reflecting new developments in the international understanding of business and human rights, including new EU instruments. It will also align with the commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that the action plan on business and human rights is further developed and to review whether there is a need for greater emphasis on mandatory due diligence. My ambition is to finalise the new plan this year.
I appreciate the Minister of State's ambition. He said that the review showed that 91% of commitments in the original plan were implemented. However, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission found that "While a high implementation rate is reported, there was a failure to meet key commitments within agreed timeframes and the Plan focused on 'promotion' rather than mandatory and ambitious requirements." We are talking about a human rights plan here and the need to embed it in all companies, the importance of which is clear. I do not know if the Minister of State is aware of the report from Trinity Business School entitled "Irish Business and Human Rights - A snapshot of large firms operating in Ireland". It is a really damning, 45-page report. It uses three measurement themes: governance; embedding respect; and grievance procedures. A full 86% of the companies surveyed scored less than 50% of the available marks, while 28% of companies scored no points under human rights due diligence.
Then we have the State bodies, which featured very badly. State-owned enterprises fared poorly, with five of them scoring less than one point. We are talking about Coillte, CIÉ, Dublin Airport, An Post and so on. That is a human rights report from January of this year.
I am aware of that report. We also need to acknowledge that there has been progress. We have not seen the level of progress we want. One of the benefits of the stakeholder forum is that we can engage all those parties around a table to directly reflect on that level of progress. There are many businesses that are utilising the United Nations guiding principles and OECD guidelines on responsible business conduct, particularly for multinational enterprises. There is a much greater engagement in this area. The Department has also established a responsible business forum, which I chair and which brings all of the parties on the business side around the table to outline the importance of pushing on this. We have engaged at European level proactively and are working with NGOs on the corporate sustainability reporting directive, CSRD, and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive, CSDD. I will continue to do that. We have a lot more progress to make, which is why the stakeholder forums are beneficial. My priority is to have that plan ready this year.
We need dates, terms of reference and specific objectives within a timeframe. Let us look at what is happening in the light of the 2011 UN guiding principles, under a framework of protect, respect and remedy. Coal from the Cerrejón mines in north-east Colombia is still being used by the ESB despite well-documented human rights abuses associated with the operation of this mine. Airbnb Ireland UC allows tourism-related businesses based in Israeli settlements to use its platforms to advertise their services. Front Line Defenders, whom we all depend on, reported 401 killings of human rights defenders in 2022 compared with 358 in 2021. I could go on but I have only 12 seconds left.
On the importance of a plan, the Minister of State has given me no reason for the delay of four solid years or for a forum coming together with no terms of reference. He has given me assurance, and I trust his bona fides, that we will have a plan before the end of the year. However, he can forgive my frustration and anger about something as important as this.
I have given the Deputy reasons. It is because we are engaging with stakeholders to try to get proper terms of reference that can be delivered on and measured. It is important that we have that engagement. On the specific instances the Deputy referred to, that is why it is so important that we have the Department of Foreign Affairs, which has a global outlook and reach, working with us. Through the responsible business forum, I will certainly begin to push these matters. Since 2011, we have had the CSDD and CSRD and we can begin to ensure that they are implemented and that companies abide by them. I give the Deputy an assurance that we will have a plan by the end of this year. I will engage with her around the timelines on that. She is one of the only Deputies who actually engages consistently in this agenda.
