EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL WELFARE ISSUES
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Social Welfare Discrimination Against People Employed by their Spouses (05/03/08)
Construction Industry Workers (04/06/08)
Nurses’ Dispute (03/04/07)
Loss of Employment through Company Relocation (04/07/06)
Social Partnership Agreement (21/06/06)
IBEC and the Social Partnership Agreement (03/05/06)
Social Partnership and Benchmarking (28/03/06)
Back to top of the page
Social Welfare Discrimination Against People Employed by their Spouses
05/03/08 - I wish to raise an issue that I tried to raise in the past year, previous to the Minister becoming the incumbent of his high office. The Minister is a practical man and I do not believe he will disagree with me on this subject, though his answer may be another matter. I am referring to the issue of a spouse employed by a spouse, which will often happen in accountants’ offices, veterinary surgeries, dental practices and so on. This issue relates to people who are genuinely working, not those playing the old soldier, and I support any investigations into this that are deemed necessary. I refer to those who work a full day, take holidays when they are entitled to them and make pay-related social insurance, PRSI, contributions.
It appears that in this situation a person pays, has deductions made and makes contributions under class A stamps. The person continues to make these contributions and they are accepted by either the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Finance. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong because this may have changed in the past month. When these people make early claims for maternity benefit and later claims relating to a contributory old-age pension they are told they are not entitled to do so because stamps accumulated while employed by a spouse are not taken into consideration.
This issue relates to inequality and it is anti-family because it suggests that the smart thing to do before claiming one’s pension is to divorce one’s partner and then claim the pension. One could then remarry in the future. Perhaps some of this should be dealt with under civil partnership. … There are issues of equality and fairness in this matter. This is also a family issue because we are trying to encourage people to work from home so this matter should be carefully examined.
In terms of where this issue should go, I studied the law relating to this area and the constitutional position on equality. My colleague, Senator Mullen, could interpret the law better than I, a lay person, in this situation. I referred to The Irish Constitution by J. M. Kelly, a legal bible for the layman, which legal practitioners use as an early textbook but the rest of us still refer to in its various editions after 20 years. Professor Kelly, Mr. Gerard Hogan and others would share the view that this looks like invidious discrimination.
Back to top of the page
Construction Industry Workers
04/06/08 - I do not know if Senators have heard but Cement Roadstone Holdings pre-tax profits for this year are down to a mere €2 billion. This worry for me has added to my sleeplessness over the past few nights. For some time now, I have been extraordinarily concerned for the Construction Industry Federation, CIF. We should give some thought for and show some solidarity with that hard-pressed group of people, the builders of Ireland.
This is a serious issue. With the costs of maintaining helicopters and changing planes, one must have some level of sympathy for them. This is a serious issue, particularly with the recent demand from the CIF that construction workers should take a 30% drop in salary and agree to a pay-freeze for the foreseeable future.
The construction industry is an issue. Over the past five years the Seanad has debated difficulties with the construction industry, first-time buyers being screwed and their parents being oppressed, suppressed and being taken advantage of by profiteering, greedy and grasping builders.
The builders now have the cheek to tell us that the people working for them should take a reduction in salary. It is appalling they can do so with a straight face. I would welcome a debate on the matter. Maybe we should have a national collection to support the building industry profiteers who have taken every cent out of our pockets for the past ten years. I would welcome a serious discussion on the construction industry.
Back to top of the page
Nurses’ Dispute
03/04/07 - It is regrettable that the nurses’ dispute has reached its current stage. I would not normally comment on industrial relations matters but this matter was referred to those at the highest level in the national implementation body and they failed to resolve it. However, progress was made and it would be helpful it people reread the report issued by the body on Sunday afternoon last. The report indicates that significant progress was made on the issue of working hours and that the management side indicated that it was prepared to deal with this. Progress was also made on the issue of the differential between nurses and non-qualified people. However, progress was not made on the 10% general pay claim.
There is a great deal to be said for revisiting the national implementation body with a view to examining what is happening and recognising that progress can be made on two of the three issues. Time possibly could be then made available to deal with the 10% general pay claim. I think people recognise that nurses have made a fair argument, that the issue can and should be addressed and that structures exist for that purpose. The parties should, therefore, return to the national implementation body.
Back to top of the page
Loss of Employment through Company Relocation
04/07/06 - Last year when we discussed employment I made the point that 80% of Irish call centres would migrate to English-speaking Africa by the end of the next decade and I still think that will happen. What happened yesterday in Waterford is tough on the workers and the area. That was only a consolidation and reorganisation. There will be more of this and only the call centres that have added value such as technical support will stay here. Those that only give information and deal with issues will move to English-speaking Africa and we cannot depend on them. We should make every effort to bring better industry and to retrain and help the workers who have lost jobs in Waterford and to ensure they get a decent redundancy if they are left without employment. This is a significant issue for the future. A large number of people work for call centres around the country. Those who are simply giving out information will not do that for much longer and we must ensure there are alternatives for them.
Back to top of the page
Social Partnership Agreement
21/06/2006 - Whatever people say about what social partnership has achieved, I take a more positive view than others. I will speak on certainties. Since the beginning of social partnership, Irish productivity has been the highest in Europe. In the past 15 or 16 years, only in 2001 was Ireland not ranked among the top two or three countries in this regard. Through the 1990s, we were by far the most productive country. …. it means that Irish workers worked longer and harder and produced more. No one in Europe can gainsay this fact and no country in Europe can match Ireland’s record in terms of industrial peace, which is directly and solely attributable to the partnership process.
There is no democratic deficit. The Government, which was elected by the people, is engaging with civic society and allowing the pillars thereof to engage with one another. I would like people to see one part of this process, namely, where the four pillars sit down with the Government in plenary session. Therein, the hard men and women of a group must listen to their counterparts in the other groups and are forced to engage with issues such as economic growth and creating the climate for job and wealth creation. It is telling to watch strongly committed trade unionists who have never engaged in that process now doing so and answering questions. The agreement is important because it involves engagement and progress is made in the way it reduces tensions among the different parties.
It is not a conjuring trick but a well-worked economic model. The priority is to create the conditions for growth and wealth creation, because without them there will be no share-out. There is no point in unions arguing about the redistribution of wealth, to use an old phrase, or share-out, to use a modern one, if there is nothing to share. If we only argue about a bit of the cake, rather than the size of the cake, we will not get anywhere.
I have left the House with just two certainties about productivity and industrial peace. I could go into many more issues but the picture would get greyer and greyer and would attract argumentation.
I have been trying to give people simple ideas they can use in discussions. Events in Europe in the past two years convince me of the need for social partnership. France went rigid with fear over job security, workers’ rights and the permanency of employment and effectively closed down. We are trying to avoid that, which is a huge task and took up most of the time during the talks. When one solves a problem before it happens one never receives credit for it, which is one of the problems of social partnership, but we are trying to anticipate problems.
This agreement is about vision, strategy and moving forward to create a society that is fairer and in which people feel looked after.
Back to top of the page
IBEC and the Social Partnership Agreement
03/05/06 - On a number of occasions I have asked for a discussion on developments under the national partnership talks. Other colleagues, such as Senator Ross, have also asked for a debate, perhaps for different reasons. I ask the House to note, in particular, that at a time when house price inflation is running at over 10%, CEOs and directors are getting increases of more than 20% per annum in their remuneration and the economy is still growing at an unprecedented pace, IBEC can tell the people of Ireland with a straight face that it will hold workers at the economic coalface to low single figure increases in their remuneration over the next few years. It is important that public representatives, such as the Members of this House, should express their views on this grasping and greedy selfishness as articulated by IBEC.
IBEC does not want to pay the workers on the ground, nor does it want more Government spending on services. Effectively, when it talks about competitiveness what it really means is trousering the gains from the wealth created by society. It is time we told it we will not put up with this. People do not have to show their hands on this but if we want to maintain the partnership spirit and good relations in the workplace, as public representatives we should be calling for a reasonably generous deal for workers at all levels of the economy. Nobody can object to that.
Back to top of the page
Social Partnership and Benchmarking
28/03/06 - As we go about our business in Ireland, it is worth looking at the rest of Europe. Over the last year we have seen strikes in Italy, Belgium, France and Germany. Today, France and the UK are shut down entirely, with rail travel, education, and health care affected. We may ask ourselves why that is not happening in Ireland. That there is not such disruption here and that we have recently had fewer days of public service strikes than any other country in western Europe can be ascribed to what the previous Minister for Finance, former Deputy McCreevy, described to me in private conversation as “the grand prize”. We delivered something through a formula that boils down to two expressions, “social partnership” and “benchmarking”. The next person who stands up to ask whether it was worth it and whether we gave away too much should remember that is the prize that we have delivered.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Social Welfare Discrimination Against People Employed by their Spouses (05/03/08)
Construction Industry Workers (04/06/08)
Nurses’ Dispute (03/04/07)
Loss of Employment through Company Relocation (04/07/06)
Social Partnership Agreement (21/06/06)
IBEC and the Social Partnership Agreement (03/05/06)
Social Partnership and Benchmarking (28/03/06)
Back to top of the page
Social Welfare Discrimination Against People Employed by their Spouses
05/03/08 - I wish to raise an issue that I tried to raise in the past year, previous to the Minister becoming the incumbent of his high office. The Minister is a practical man and I do not believe he will disagree with me on this subject, though his answer may be another matter. I am referring to the issue of a spouse employed by a spouse, which will often happen in accountants’ offices, veterinary surgeries, dental practices and so on. This issue relates to people who are genuinely working, not those playing the old soldier, and I support any investigations into this that are deemed necessary. I refer to those who work a full day, take holidays when they are entitled to them and make pay-related social insurance, PRSI, contributions.
It appears that in this situation a person pays, has deductions made and makes contributions under class A stamps. The person continues to make these contributions and they are accepted by either the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Department of Finance. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong because this may have changed in the past month. When these people make early claims for maternity benefit and later claims relating to a contributory old-age pension they are told they are not entitled to do so because stamps accumulated while employed by a spouse are not taken into consideration.
This issue relates to inequality and it is anti-family because it suggests that the smart thing to do before claiming one’s pension is to divorce one’s partner and then claim the pension. One could then remarry in the future. Perhaps some of this should be dealt with under civil partnership. … There are issues of equality and fairness in this matter. This is also a family issue because we are trying to encourage people to work from home so this matter should be carefully examined.
In terms of where this issue should go, I studied the law relating to this area and the constitutional position on equality. My colleague, Senator Mullen, could interpret the law better than I, a lay person, in this situation. I referred to The Irish Constitution by J. M. Kelly, a legal bible for the layman, which legal practitioners use as an early textbook but the rest of us still refer to in its various editions after 20 years. Professor Kelly, Mr. Gerard Hogan and others would share the view that this looks like invidious discrimination.
Back to top of the page
Construction Industry Workers
04/06/08 - I do not know if Senators have heard but Cement Roadstone Holdings pre-tax profits for this year are down to a mere €2 billion. This worry for me has added to my sleeplessness over the past few nights. For some time now, I have been extraordinarily concerned for the Construction Industry Federation, CIF. We should give some thought for and show some solidarity with that hard-pressed group of people, the builders of Ireland.
This is a serious issue. With the costs of maintaining helicopters and changing planes, one must have some level of sympathy for them. This is a serious issue, particularly with the recent demand from the CIF that construction workers should take a 30% drop in salary and agree to a pay-freeze for the foreseeable future.
The construction industry is an issue. Over the past five years the Seanad has debated difficulties with the construction industry, first-time buyers being screwed and their parents being oppressed, suppressed and being taken advantage of by profiteering, greedy and grasping builders.
The builders now have the cheek to tell us that the people working for them should take a reduction in salary. It is appalling they can do so with a straight face. I would welcome a debate on the matter. Maybe we should have a national collection to support the building industry profiteers who have taken every cent out of our pockets for the past ten years. I would welcome a serious discussion on the construction industry.
Back to top of the page
Nurses’ Dispute
03/04/07 - It is regrettable that the nurses’ dispute has reached its current stage. I would not normally comment on industrial relations matters but this matter was referred to those at the highest level in the national implementation body and they failed to resolve it. However, progress was made and it would be helpful it people reread the report issued by the body on Sunday afternoon last. The report indicates that significant progress was made on the issue of working hours and that the management side indicated that it was prepared to deal with this. Progress was also made on the issue of the differential between nurses and non-qualified people. However, progress was not made on the 10% general pay claim.
There is a great deal to be said for revisiting the national implementation body with a view to examining what is happening and recognising that progress can be made on two of the three issues. Time possibly could be then made available to deal with the 10% general pay claim. I think people recognise that nurses have made a fair argument, that the issue can and should be addressed and that structures exist for that purpose. The parties should, therefore, return to the national implementation body.
Back to top of the page
Loss of Employment through Company Relocation
04/07/06 - Last year when we discussed employment I made the point that 80% of Irish call centres would migrate to English-speaking Africa by the end of the next decade and I still think that will happen. What happened yesterday in Waterford is tough on the workers and the area. That was only a consolidation and reorganisation. There will be more of this and only the call centres that have added value such as technical support will stay here. Those that only give information and deal with issues will move to English-speaking Africa and we cannot depend on them. We should make every effort to bring better industry and to retrain and help the workers who have lost jobs in Waterford and to ensure they get a decent redundancy if they are left without employment. This is a significant issue for the future. A large number of people work for call centres around the country. Those who are simply giving out information will not do that for much longer and we must ensure there are alternatives for them.
Back to top of the page
Social Partnership Agreement
21/06/2006 - Whatever people say about what social partnership has achieved, I take a more positive view than others. I will speak on certainties. Since the beginning of social partnership, Irish productivity has been the highest in Europe. In the past 15 or 16 years, only in 2001 was Ireland not ranked among the top two or three countries in this regard. Through the 1990s, we were by far the most productive country. …. it means that Irish workers worked longer and harder and produced more. No one in Europe can gainsay this fact and no country in Europe can match Ireland’s record in terms of industrial peace, which is directly and solely attributable to the partnership process.
There is no democratic deficit. The Government, which was elected by the people, is engaging with civic society and allowing the pillars thereof to engage with one another. I would like people to see one part of this process, namely, where the four pillars sit down with the Government in plenary session. Therein, the hard men and women of a group must listen to their counterparts in the other groups and are forced to engage with issues such as economic growth and creating the climate for job and wealth creation. It is telling to watch strongly committed trade unionists who have never engaged in that process now doing so and answering questions. The agreement is important because it involves engagement and progress is made in the way it reduces tensions among the different parties.
It is not a conjuring trick but a well-worked economic model. The priority is to create the conditions for growth and wealth creation, because without them there will be no share-out. There is no point in unions arguing about the redistribution of wealth, to use an old phrase, or share-out, to use a modern one, if there is nothing to share. If we only argue about a bit of the cake, rather than the size of the cake, we will not get anywhere.
I have left the House with just two certainties about productivity and industrial peace. I could go into many more issues but the picture would get greyer and greyer and would attract argumentation.
I have been trying to give people simple ideas they can use in discussions. Events in Europe in the past two years convince me of the need for social partnership. France went rigid with fear over job security, workers’ rights and the permanency of employment and effectively closed down. We are trying to avoid that, which is a huge task and took up most of the time during the talks. When one solves a problem before it happens one never receives credit for it, which is one of the problems of social partnership, but we are trying to anticipate problems.
This agreement is about vision, strategy and moving forward to create a society that is fairer and in which people feel looked after.
Back to top of the page
IBEC and the Social Partnership Agreement
03/05/06 - On a number of occasions I have asked for a discussion on developments under the national partnership talks. Other colleagues, such as Senator Ross, have also asked for a debate, perhaps for different reasons. I ask the House to note, in particular, that at a time when house price inflation is running at over 10%, CEOs and directors are getting increases of more than 20% per annum in their remuneration and the economy is still growing at an unprecedented pace, IBEC can tell the people of Ireland with a straight face that it will hold workers at the economic coalface to low single figure increases in their remuneration over the next few years. It is important that public representatives, such as the Members of this House, should express their views on this grasping and greedy selfishness as articulated by IBEC.
IBEC does not want to pay the workers on the ground, nor does it want more Government spending on services. Effectively, when it talks about competitiveness what it really means is trousering the gains from the wealth created by society. It is time we told it we will not put up with this. People do not have to show their hands on this but if we want to maintain the partnership spirit and good relations in the workplace, as public representatives we should be calling for a reasonably generous deal for workers at all levels of the economy. Nobody can object to that.
Back to top of the page
Social Partnership and Benchmarking
28/03/06 - As we go about our business in Ireland, it is worth looking at the rest of Europe. Over the last year we have seen strikes in Italy, Belgium, France and Germany. Today, France and the UK are shut down entirely, with rail travel, education, and health care affected. We may ask ourselves why that is not happening in Ireland. That there is not such disruption here and that we have recently had fewer days of public service strikes than any other country in western Europe can be ascribed to what the previous Minister for Finance, former Deputy McCreevy, described to me in private conversation as “the grand prize”. We delivered something through a formula that boils down to two expressions, “social partnership” and “benchmarking”. The next person who stands up to ask whether it was worth it and whether we gave away too much should remember that is the prize that we have delivered.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website