31 January Small Schools Motion
Click to listen Maureen's speech
I acknowledge what the Minister said in his speech about the reality of the situation he inherited. He has discussed savings. The previous Government had two schemes which, in the minds of many teachers, were a complete waste of money. One is the €5.6 million that went into setting up the Teaching Council which teachers did not want and the other was the money wasted on the supervision and substitution scheme.
Education is not being well served in the budget. DEIS schools were mentioned and the Minister acknowledged certain mistakes in that regard. There are issues with guidance counsellors, postgraduate students and now small schools. It is a particular issue for rural areas but there are also small schools in urban areas. It is retrograde to target small schools because they have been progressive in providing an excellent education.
There is a spread of population issue for many schools located in rural areas, particularly on the islands, and they cannot be penalised for that. While they tend to have a better pupil teacher ratio, that has to be balanced with the spread and challenge posed by one teacher teaching varying ages in one classroom. I am all for change if what is in place is not working but what is happening in schools works, and one sees that from the school evaluations and websites. Some are gaelscoileanna and others are schools in Gaeltacht areas, others are island Gaeltacht schools. We are also talking about undermining the work they do in promoting the Irish language and continuing its use.
If the population in an island school is very small, one teacher could be teaching a class with an age range from four years to 12 or 13 years. What was the extent of the consultation with parents and teachers in those schools? Where is the proof that closing them would save money? The small schools value for money review was mentioned. At what stage is that and why did the Minister not wait for it to be published before these decisions were made?.
Small schools in the Gaeltacht and on the islands are more than schools, they are central to the community and to ensuring community life will continue. The amendment states this has to do with the allocation of teaching posts and is not a measure to close small schools. Reducing the number of teachers will mean small schools will not be viable and will close. If a school in a community is closed, it will affect more than just the school because schools are central to community life.
Education is not being well served in the budget. DEIS schools were mentioned and the Minister acknowledged certain mistakes in that regard. There are issues with guidance counsellors, postgraduate students and now small schools. It is a particular issue for rural areas but there are also small schools in urban areas. It is retrograde to target small schools because they have been progressive in providing an excellent education.
There is a spread of population issue for many schools located in rural areas, particularly on the islands, and they cannot be penalised for that. While they tend to have a better pupil teacher ratio, that has to be balanced with the spread and challenge posed by one teacher teaching varying ages in one classroom. I am all for change if what is in place is not working but what is happening in schools works, and one sees that from the school evaluations and websites. Some are gaelscoileanna and others are schools in Gaeltacht areas, others are island Gaeltacht schools. We are also talking about undermining the work they do in promoting the Irish language and continuing its use.
If the population in an island school is very small, one teacher could be teaching a class with an age range from four years to 12 or 13 years. What was the extent of the consultation with parents and teachers in those schools? Where is the proof that closing them would save money? The small schools value for money review was mentioned. At what stage is that and why did the Minister not wait for it to be published before these decisions were made?.
Small schools in the Gaeltacht and on the islands are more than schools, they are central to the community and to ensuring community life will continue. The amendment states this has to do with the allocation of teaching posts and is not a measure to close small schools. Reducing the number of teachers will mean small schools will not be viable and will close. If a school in a community is closed, it will affect more than just the school because schools are central to community life.
18 January School Guidance Counsellors: Motion (Resumed)
I did the guidance and counselling course in University College Dublin in 1991-92. Given the numbers in my own school I combined that role with the teaching of English and history until 2009, when I was elected to Dáil Éireann. I acknowledge the commitment and dedication of those people with whom I did the course in 1991-92 and of the many guidance counsellors I worked with in those 20 years.
I will not speak about statutory and legal requirements. I will speak from my personal experience of what was involved in guidance counselling during those 20 years. For me, and many others, it was divided into two areas. One was the careers area and the other was counselling. In the careers area there was a defined contact with students in their leaving certificate year. It is a difficult but also a wonderful year. As a guidance counsellor one is there and guiding students through the wide range of options available to them: further study through the central applications office, CAO; post-leaving certificate, PLC, courses; repeat leaving certificate; work; apprenticeship; going abroad; or going through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, UCAS, system. Being a guidance counsellor means being with the students during that year as they go through the stresses, difficulties, joys and sorrows and being with them when they change their minds, as they do on many occasions, and when the offers and results come in. It means being available to them when they leave school, face other difficulties and want to come back to the guidance counsellor. It is about working with the incoming first year students, fifth years and transition year students on subject choices. It is about using the standardised tests and being with them and guiding them through their CVs, mock interviews and open days.
The guidance and counselling course is a professional qualification to do career guidance work and counselling. When I look back over those 20 years I think of what I did. Some of my work was one-to-one counselling and some was group counselling, depending on the situation. Some was drawing up my own programme or adapting existing programmes. I went through support in relationship difficulties with boy-friends, girl-friends or parents. A common situation was separating parents and the stresses for students from that and when new partners were brought in. The job and money situation at home would come to school with the student. Issues arose around sexuality, teenage pregnancy, bullying, addiction, alcoholism, violence, abuse, eating disorders and self harm. Counselling means being with the students in a very special way during any of those events. It is about being available at all times during the course of the school day, and after that day.
Given that we do not have sufficient referral agencies in this country in many cases the guidance counsellor is the only support available. When there is a particular tragedy the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, will come in, but NEPS will go and the guidance counsellor will still be there.
I acknowledge one aspect of the Government amendment, which is that guidance is part of the pastoral care system in a school involving year heads and form teachers. It is retrograde to leave schools without this service and leave the burden of choice on principals. I ask the Minister to look at the substitution and supervision scheme instead, and leave guidance counsellors in place.
I will not speak about statutory and legal requirements. I will speak from my personal experience of what was involved in guidance counselling during those 20 years. For me, and many others, it was divided into two areas. One was the careers area and the other was counselling. In the careers area there was a defined contact with students in their leaving certificate year. It is a difficult but also a wonderful year. As a guidance counsellor one is there and guiding students through the wide range of options available to them: further study through the central applications office, CAO; post-leaving certificate, PLC, courses; repeat leaving certificate; work; apprenticeship; going abroad; or going through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, UCAS, system. Being a guidance counsellor means being with the students during that year as they go through the stresses, difficulties, joys and sorrows and being with them when they change their minds, as they do on many occasions, and when the offers and results come in. It means being available to them when they leave school, face other difficulties and want to come back to the guidance counsellor. It is about working with the incoming first year students, fifth years and transition year students on subject choices. It is about using the standardised tests and being with them and guiding them through their CVs, mock interviews and open days.
The guidance and counselling course is a professional qualification to do career guidance work and counselling. When I look back over those 20 years I think of what I did. Some of my work was one-to-one counselling and some was group counselling, depending on the situation. Some was drawing up my own programme or adapting existing programmes. I went through support in relationship difficulties with boy-friends, girl-friends or parents. A common situation was separating parents and the stresses for students from that and when new partners were brought in. The job and money situation at home would come to school with the student. Issues arose around sexuality, teenage pregnancy, bullying, addiction, alcoholism, violence, abuse, eating disorders and self harm. Counselling means being with the students in a very special way during any of those events. It is about being available at all times during the course of the school day, and after that day.
Given that we do not have sufficient referral agencies in this country in many cases the guidance counsellor is the only support available. When there is a particular tragedy the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, will come in, but NEPS will go and the guidance counsellor will still be there.
I acknowledge one aspect of the Government amendment, which is that guidance is part of the pastoral care system in a school involving year heads and form teachers. It is retrograde to leave schools without this service and leave the burden of choice on principals. I ask the Minister to look at the substitution and supervision scheme instead, and leave guidance counsellors in place.
18 January 2012 Topical Issue Debate - Community Employment Schemes
To ask the Minster for Health (with responsibility for the National Drugs Strategy), in view of the uncertain and critical situation for Community Employment Schemes and the reduction in allowances to individual to outline the current and future status of CE ring-fenced Drugs Rehabilitation places that a central role in delivering the National Rehabilitation Strategy Maureen O’Sullivan TD
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this matter to be discussed in the Topical Issue Debate, particularly as community employment, CE, schemes in general were raised in the Topical Issue Debate yesterday and the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, was present to discuss them. However, I am raising specific CE schemes which have been ring-fenced because they are part of the national drugs strategy.
There are 1,000 places nationally on these special drug CE schemes, with 130 of them in Dublin’s north inner city which is part of the constituency I represent. These CE schemes are part of the delivery of the national rehabilitation strategy in facilitating stabilisation and recovery from problem drug use of the participants in the schemes. Each scheme has a care plan for each participant. The care plan deals with their recovery from drug abuse or misuse and the rehabilitation pathway that is suitable and appropriate for the person. There is development education, with great emphasis on literacy and numeracy, which is vital for many of the people on the schemes. There is training with a view to employment or further education. Part of the programme also deals with safety and healthy living.
Some people self-refer, but there are also referrals from the HSE, the probation service, drug projects and from a variety of places. These programmes are vital. Some of them, such as SAOL in the north inner city, deal with extremely vulnerable women. At present, there is a question mark over CE schemes which is causing difficulties for participants, but it is particularly stressful for the drug rehabilitation schemes.
The Annie Kelly Education Bursary in the north inner city drugs task force area is for people who are in recovery from drug addiction to continue into further education. Many of those who have applied for that bursary are now in third level education or have progressed from third level. They came from those CE schemes. The point is that the ring-fenced CE schemes work. With regard to the review that is taking place, I believe people such as the participants who availed of that bursary should have an input into the review. They will be able to give a first hand account of what the CE scheme has done for them. It is a completely different matter for people sitting in an office and tossing around figures.
The forms that have been sent out to CE schemes for the review have been also sent to the ring-fenced schemes. Cognisance is not being taken of the special nature of those schemes or of the special conditions attached to them, such as the lower ratio of participants. Will the Minister safeguard those CE schemes?
Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall):Education I thank Deputy O’Sullivan for raising this matter. I am aware of her active interest in this issue and I commend her on the work she is doing. We need more public representatives to get involved in addressing the many issues associated with drug misuse.
I wish to stress that I am particularly focused on ensuring there is an increased emphasis on moving people from drug treatment to a drug-free lifestyle, where this is achievable. I am on record for expressing, on a number of occasions, my belief and concern that too many people get stuck in methadone treatment without the existence of a clear pathway towards recovery. I am anxious to restore the principle of recovery in our treatment services for drug misusers. We should aim towards recovery and a drug-free lifestyle to the greatest extent possible. There has been insufficient focus on this ambitious goal in the past and we must redouble our efforts to present drug users with opportunities to achieve a life without drugs.
The National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016 and the earlier report of the working group on drugs rehabilitation emphasise the need for our response to be client-centred. We must endeavour to provide a “continuum of care” for problem drug users to enable them to address their health needs, as well as their general social, housing, educational and employment needs. As Deputy O’Sullivan knows, often the shortcomings have been in the education that has been available to the individual concerned. There are a number of indicators for what predisposes people to drug misuse, and educational disadvantage is a key one.
Drug-specific community employment schemes have made a significant contribution to the broad rehabilitation effort and I acknowledge the role played by FÁS in this regard over the years. This special programme is part of the integrated effort to facilitate and support participants in their ongoing recovery from problem drug use. The programme aims to enable those affected by substance misuse to address those problems through helping to provide more structure to their lives and giving them opportunities to improve their skills.
I assure the Deputy that drug-specific CE schemes continue to play a critical part in the drug rehabilitation effort. I intend to put a renewed emphasis on the area of rehabilitation. The nine-point special conditions for the delivery of the drugs rehabilitation CE places were revised a year ago to ensure consistent and appropriate referral, delivery and implementation in regard to the projects involved. One aim of this process is to ensure that there is a consistent and integrated approach nationally to the referral of people to these CE opportunities.
In the context of the recent budget, I wrote to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, emphasising the importance of drug-specific CE schemes in the effort to facilitate rehabilitation from drug use and pointing out that the designation of the 1,000 places involved is made in recognition of the fact that recovering drug users are not, initially in any case, facilitated by a direct labour market mechanism to the same extent as are those in mainstream CE. I subsequently met with the Minister, Deputy Burton, and she is fully aware of the importance of the role that CE schemes play in the provision of crucial social services in communities, and of the particular needs in regard to drug rehabilitation.
The Minister has asked that an initial review of all CE schemes be undertaken by the end of March. In the meantime, no CE schemes will close and any difficulties arising regarding the funding of individual schemes will be addressed. I will continue to work closely with the Minister, Deputy Burton, as will our respective officials, to ensure that the special place of the ring-fenced drug-specific CE places is protected and adequately funded into the future. I am confident such schemes will continue to be a very beneficial part of the drugs rehabilitation effort.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I am aware of the Minister of State’s commitment in this area. I take heart from two of the Minister’s statements, namely, the acknowledgement that these schemes have made a significant contribution to the broad rehabilitation effort, and that the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, will ensure the special place of these drug-specific CE places is protected and adequately funded. I agree with the Minister about those who have been stuck in methadone treatment and that there must be a way out. However, sometimes harm reduction is the only route for certain people.
Finally, certain CE schemes provide crèche facilities for the people who participate in the ring-fenced schemes. Therefore, while the schemes providing crèche facilities are not ring-fenced, people would not be able to take part in the special schemes unless there was provision for their children. I hope those schemes will be considered as well.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: I take the Deputy’s point about harm reduction but, overall, we must be more ambitious in terms of achieving a drug-free lifestyle as far as possible. I appreciate the Deputy’s remarks. I am keen that the working group would meet again soon and that we would process this issue through that working group. Before this issue arose there was a question as to why we were not filling the full 1,000 quota. I am anxious to ensure that all those places are taken. I also accept the Deputy’s point about child care. I understand that the Minister, Deputy Burton, is conscious of the important social service that is provided in many communities through the provision of child care services through community employment, and she is particularly keen to protect them.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing this matter to be discussed in the Topical Issue Debate, particularly as community employment, CE, schemes in general were raised in the Topical Issue Debate yesterday and the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, was present to discuss them. However, I am raising specific CE schemes which have been ring-fenced because they are part of the national drugs strategy.
There are 1,000 places nationally on these special drug CE schemes, with 130 of them in Dublin’s north inner city which is part of the constituency I represent. These CE schemes are part of the delivery of the national rehabilitation strategy in facilitating stabilisation and recovery from problem drug use of the participants in the schemes. Each scheme has a care plan for each participant. The care plan deals with their recovery from drug abuse or misuse and the rehabilitation pathway that is suitable and appropriate for the person. There is development education, with great emphasis on literacy and numeracy, which is vital for many of the people on the schemes. There is training with a view to employment or further education. Part of the programme also deals with safety and healthy living.
Some people self-refer, but there are also referrals from the HSE, the probation service, drug projects and from a variety of places. These programmes are vital. Some of them, such as SAOL in the north inner city, deal with extremely vulnerable women. At present, there is a question mark over CE schemes which is causing difficulties for participants, but it is particularly stressful for the drug rehabilitation schemes.
The Annie Kelly Education Bursary in the north inner city drugs task force area is for people who are in recovery from drug addiction to continue into further education. Many of those who have applied for that bursary are now in third level education or have progressed from third level. They came from those CE schemes. The point is that the ring-fenced CE schemes work. With regard to the review that is taking place, I believe people such as the participants who availed of that bursary should have an input into the review. They will be able to give a first hand account of what the CE scheme has done for them. It is a completely different matter for people sitting in an office and tossing around figures.
The forms that have been sent out to CE schemes for the review have been also sent to the ring-fenced schemes. Cognisance is not being taken of the special nature of those schemes or of the special conditions attached to them, such as the lower ratio of participants. Will the Minister safeguard those CE schemes?
Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Róisín Shortall):Education I thank Deputy O’Sullivan for raising this matter. I am aware of her active interest in this issue and I commend her on the work she is doing. We need more public representatives to get involved in addressing the many issues associated with drug misuse.
I wish to stress that I am particularly focused on ensuring there is an increased emphasis on moving people from drug treatment to a drug-free lifestyle, where this is achievable. I am on record for expressing, on a number of occasions, my belief and concern that too many people get stuck in methadone treatment without the existence of a clear pathway towards recovery. I am anxious to restore the principle of recovery in our treatment services for drug misusers. We should aim towards recovery and a drug-free lifestyle to the greatest extent possible. There has been insufficient focus on this ambitious goal in the past and we must redouble our efforts to present drug users with opportunities to achieve a life without drugs.
The National Drugs Strategy 2009-2016 and the earlier report of the working group on drugs rehabilitation emphasise the need for our response to be client-centred. We must endeavour to provide a “continuum of care” for problem drug users to enable them to address their health needs, as well as their general social, housing, educational and employment needs. As Deputy O’Sullivan knows, often the shortcomings have been in the education that has been available to the individual concerned. There are a number of indicators for what predisposes people to drug misuse, and educational disadvantage is a key one.
Drug-specific community employment schemes have made a significant contribution to the broad rehabilitation effort and I acknowledge the role played by FÁS in this regard over the years. This special programme is part of the integrated effort to facilitate and support participants in their ongoing recovery from problem drug use. The programme aims to enable those affected by substance misuse to address those problems through helping to provide more structure to their lives and giving them opportunities to improve their skills.
I assure the Deputy that drug-specific CE schemes continue to play a critical part in the drug rehabilitation effort. I intend to put a renewed emphasis on the area of rehabilitation. The nine-point special conditions for the delivery of the drugs rehabilitation CE places were revised a year ago to ensure consistent and appropriate referral, delivery and implementation in regard to the projects involved. One aim of this process is to ensure that there is a consistent and integrated approach nationally to the referral of people to these CE opportunities.
In the context of the recent budget, I wrote to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, emphasising the importance of drug-specific CE schemes in the effort to facilitate rehabilitation from drug use and pointing out that the designation of the 1,000 places involved is made in recognition of the fact that recovering drug users are not, initially in any case, facilitated by a direct labour market mechanism to the same extent as are those in mainstream CE. I subsequently met with the Minister, Deputy Burton, and she is fully aware of the importance of the role that CE schemes play in the provision of crucial social services in communities, and of the particular needs in regard to drug rehabilitation.
The Minister has asked that an initial review of all CE schemes be undertaken by the end of March. In the meantime, no CE schemes will close and any difficulties arising regarding the funding of individual schemes will be addressed. I will continue to work closely with the Minister, Deputy Burton, as will our respective officials, to ensure that the special place of the ring-fenced drug-specific CE places is protected and adequately funded into the future. I am confident such schemes will continue to be a very beneficial part of the drugs rehabilitation effort.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I am aware of the Minister of State’s commitment in this area. I take heart from two of the Minister’s statements, namely, the acknowledgement that these schemes have made a significant contribution to the broad rehabilitation effort, and that the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, will ensure the special place of these drug-specific CE places is protected and adequately funded. I agree with the Minister about those who have been stuck in methadone treatment and that there must be a way out. However, sometimes harm reduction is the only route for certain people.
Finally, certain CE schemes provide crèche facilities for the people who participate in the ring-fenced schemes. Therefore, while the schemes providing crèche facilities are not ring-fenced, people would not be able to take part in the special schemes unless there was provision for their children. I hope those schemes will be considered as well.
Deputy Róisín Shortall: I take the Deputy’s point about harm reduction but, overall, we must be more ambitious in terms of achieving a drug-free lifestyle as far as possible. I appreciate the Deputy’s remarks. I am keen that the working group would meet again soon and that we would process this issue through that working group. Before this issue arose there was a question as to why we were not filling the full 1,000 quota. I am anxious to ensure that all those places are taken. I also accept the Deputy’s point about child care. I understand that the Minister, Deputy Burton, is conscious of the important social service that is provided in many communities through the provision of child care services through community employment, and she is particularly keen to protect them.
18 January Industrial Relations (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2011: Second Stage (Resumed)
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: Deputy White mentioned the review process as being something very positive in the legislation. I would hope that would be the case. However, we know there is a review of community employment schemes taking place at present that is causing a great deal of stress and anxiety to people on another level. Many of them do not have an opportunity to buy into it directly so I hope their experience of the review process will be positive.
I acknowledge the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the work it has done on this legislation. Looking through it, starting at the end, I was struck by some of the reactions to this Bill. IBEC claims the Bill is misguided and unnecessary. While it welcomes the abolition of Sunday premiums as an improvement over the last regime, it argues “the entire joint labour committee, JLC, system should have been consigned to history.” It also argues employees are already protected by over 40 items of employment legislation and that the Government’s proposals are arbitrary and unnecessary.
SIPTU is disappointed the premium for working on Sundays has not been included in the proposed changes to the JLC wage-setting mechanism. However, its vice president notes low-paid workers covered by the Bill’s provisions will be able to achieve a Sunday premium through a code of practice to be developed by the JLCs.
Mandate’s general secretary acknowledges the progress embodied in the draft but that much work is required to turn it into legislation the trade union movement can fully support, particularly with regard to Sunday premiums and the inability-to-pay clause introduced for employers. Mandate is, however, pleased a replacement system will be put in place for low-paid workers.
The Irish Hotels Federation is disappointed with the Government’s intention to reintroduce the JLC system. It argues it is an outdated and regressive employment framework which is neither appropriate nor fit for purpose in a modern competitive economy. Instead, it says the Government should have seen fit to abolish JLCs which place unfair and inequitable wages costs on tourism businesses already facing severe costs pressures. It also sees it as an impediment to job creation.
The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, believes the legislation is unnecessary, will negatively impact on cost competitiveness in certain sectors and will ultimately push struggling companies over the edge. It has commented that “the reintroduction of these outdated arrangements will heap further pressure on businesses that are just about staying afloat. Companies … will be prevented from competing in a cost effective manner, stopping companies from trading successfully.”
Chambers Ireland welcomes the reduction of JLCs from 13 to six and the eradication of Sunday premiums while protecting workers’ entitlements under section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act. It feels it is a step towards more reasonable wage costs for businesses, the majority of which are domestic economy focused.
UNITE has stated the Bill “is seeking to dismantle the very structures built up to protect those who are on the lowest rates of pay” and “is a manifesto for change that could have been drawn up as a wish list for business groups and those seeking to take more profit out of the pockets of working people”.
Where is the truth in all these diverging views? On 24 May 2011, the Government published the report of the independent review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreement wage-setting mechanisms. It found the existing JLC and registered employment agreements, REA, systems require radical overhaul so as to make them fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. For whom are they meant to be fairer?
This Bill is part of a commitment made in the programme for national recovery to provide more comprehensive measures to strengthen the legal framework for employment regulation orders, EROs, and REAs. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, claims the Government’s controversial reforms of wage-setting mechanisms are fair and will protect vulnerable workers while allowing for the creation of employment. He also claims the measures will radically overhaul the joint labour committee and registered employment agreement systems so as to make them fairer, more competitive and more flexible so as to increase job creation. These changes, he believes, will also reinstate a robust system of protection for workers in sectors covered by such arrangements and similar changes in Britain have led to employment growth.
Under the Government action plan, the number of JLCs will be reduced from 13 to six. They will in future have the power to set only a basic adult rate and the discretion to set two higher increments to reflect longer periods of service. Previously such committees set more than 300 different wage rates.
JLCs will no longer set Sunday premium rates but the position of Sunday working will, however, still be recognised, mainly through options set out in the Organisation of Working Time Act, including the provision of time off in lieu. A new statutory code of practice on Sunday working will be drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission which will provide guidance for workers and employers.
Under the reforms, companies will be able to derogate from EROs in cases of financial difficulty, which I believe may cause problems. In setting rates, JLCs will in future have to take into account factors such as unemployment rates, competitiveness and wage trends here and in our major trading partners. That sets off alarm bells as to how workers will be protected.
While I would like to believe workers will be protected by this legislation, the reality may be different. I was fortunate in my job as a teacher that it was a collaborative work environment; the Department of Education and Skills and the school’s board of management were not the worst of employers. This was mainly because it was not a profit-driven enterprise.
That is not true, however, in many other worker-employer relationships in which workers are poorly treated and standards abandoned. Those in lower income groups, many of which already have many pressures through extra charges and costs, are particularly affected by poor working conditions. The less well-off pay disproportionately for the costs of the mistakes of others during the boom. While the poor get poorer, those others continue with their high lifestyles. We continue to pay the banks’ bondholders, that anonymous group of speculators and gamblers by taking from vulnerable people. More burdens are placed on the less well-off. The new poor are middle-class 30 to 39 year olds who bought into high mortgages but now face negative equity. Some of them are still working; others have lost their jobs. Where is the protection for them?
Yesterday, the issue of forced migrant workers was a Topical Issue matter while I attended a briefing in the Leinster House AV room before Christmas on migrant workers who had been trafficked to Ireland. Their stories were horrific. It was hard to believe what happened to them could happen in Ireland. They worked in appalling conditions with horrendous hours and non-existent pay. Some of these cases have been before the courts where the migrant workers have won compensation. However, in some cases, compensation has yet to be paid. There is need for legislation to protect workers in these positions. Community employment schemes have vulnerable people working on them whose rights also need to be protected.
Tomorrow the House will debate the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill which will provide for equality in respect of basic working and employment conditions such as annual leave, work time, rest breaks, public holidays and pay. Our workers must be treated fairly with basic working, employment and pay conditions because we are seeing an increase in inequalities in our society. Deputy Alex White said he saw the Bill as a great achievement. He spoke about ideology. For me, ideology is based on principles of social justice and fairness which must be applied to those who are vulnerable and most in need of protection.
I acknowledge the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the work it has done on this legislation. Looking through it, starting at the end, I was struck by some of the reactions to this Bill. IBEC claims the Bill is misguided and unnecessary. While it welcomes the abolition of Sunday premiums as an improvement over the last regime, it argues “the entire joint labour committee, JLC, system should have been consigned to history.” It also argues employees are already protected by over 40 items of employment legislation and that the Government’s proposals are arbitrary and unnecessary.
SIPTU is disappointed the premium for working on Sundays has not been included in the proposed changes to the JLC wage-setting mechanism. However, its vice president notes low-paid workers covered by the Bill’s provisions will be able to achieve a Sunday premium through a code of practice to be developed by the JLCs.
Mandate’s general secretary acknowledges the progress embodied in the draft but that much work is required to turn it into legislation the trade union movement can fully support, particularly with regard to Sunday premiums and the inability-to-pay clause introduced for employers. Mandate is, however, pleased a replacement system will be put in place for low-paid workers.
The Irish Hotels Federation is disappointed with the Government’s intention to reintroduce the JLC system. It argues it is an outdated and regressive employment framework which is neither appropriate nor fit for purpose in a modern competitive economy. Instead, it says the Government should have seen fit to abolish JLCs which place unfair and inequitable wages costs on tourism businesses already facing severe costs pressures. It also sees it as an impediment to job creation.
The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, believes the legislation is unnecessary, will negatively impact on cost competitiveness in certain sectors and will ultimately push struggling companies over the edge. It has commented that “the reintroduction of these outdated arrangements will heap further pressure on businesses that are just about staying afloat. Companies … will be prevented from competing in a cost effective manner, stopping companies from trading successfully.”
Chambers Ireland welcomes the reduction of JLCs from 13 to six and the eradication of Sunday premiums while protecting workers’ entitlements under section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act. It feels it is a step towards more reasonable wage costs for businesses, the majority of which are domestic economy focused.
UNITE has stated the Bill “is seeking to dismantle the very structures built up to protect those who are on the lowest rates of pay” and “is a manifesto for change that could have been drawn up as a wish list for business groups and those seeking to take more profit out of the pockets of working people”.
Where is the truth in all these diverging views? On 24 May 2011, the Government published the report of the independent review of employment regulation orders and registered employment agreement wage-setting mechanisms. It found the existing JLC and registered employment agreements, REA, systems require radical overhaul so as to make them fairer and more responsive to changing economic circumstances and labour market conditions. For whom are they meant to be fairer?
This Bill is part of a commitment made in the programme for national recovery to provide more comprehensive measures to strengthen the legal framework for employment regulation orders, EROs, and REAs. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, claims the Government’s controversial reforms of wage-setting mechanisms are fair and will protect vulnerable workers while allowing for the creation of employment. He also claims the measures will radically overhaul the joint labour committee and registered employment agreement systems so as to make them fairer, more competitive and more flexible so as to increase job creation. These changes, he believes, will also reinstate a robust system of protection for workers in sectors covered by such arrangements and similar changes in Britain have led to employment growth.
Under the Government action plan, the number of JLCs will be reduced from 13 to six. They will in future have the power to set only a basic adult rate and the discretion to set two higher increments to reflect longer periods of service. Previously such committees set more than 300 different wage rates.
JLCs will no longer set Sunday premium rates but the position of Sunday working will, however, still be recognised, mainly through options set out in the Organisation of Working Time Act, including the provision of time off in lieu. A new statutory code of practice on Sunday working will be drawn up by the Labour Relations Commission which will provide guidance for workers and employers.
Under the reforms, companies will be able to derogate from EROs in cases of financial difficulty, which I believe may cause problems. In setting rates, JLCs will in future have to take into account factors such as unemployment rates, competitiveness and wage trends here and in our major trading partners. That sets off alarm bells as to how workers will be protected.
While I would like to believe workers will be protected by this legislation, the reality may be different. I was fortunate in my job as a teacher that it was a collaborative work environment; the Department of Education and Skills and the school’s board of management were not the worst of employers. This was mainly because it was not a profit-driven enterprise.
That is not true, however, in many other worker-employer relationships in which workers are poorly treated and standards abandoned. Those in lower income groups, many of which already have many pressures through extra charges and costs, are particularly affected by poor working conditions. The less well-off pay disproportionately for the costs of the mistakes of others during the boom. While the poor get poorer, those others continue with their high lifestyles. We continue to pay the banks’ bondholders, that anonymous group of speculators and gamblers by taking from vulnerable people. More burdens are placed on the less well-off. The new poor are middle-class 30 to 39 year olds who bought into high mortgages but now face negative equity. Some of them are still working; others have lost their jobs. Where is the protection for them?
Yesterday, the issue of forced migrant workers was a Topical Issue matter while I attended a briefing in the Leinster House AV room before Christmas on migrant workers who had been trafficked to Ireland. Their stories were horrific. It was hard to believe what happened to them could happen in Ireland. They worked in appalling conditions with horrendous hours and non-existent pay. Some of these cases have been before the courts where the migrant workers have won compensation. However, in some cases, compensation has yet to be paid. There is need for legislation to protect workers in these positions. Community employment schemes have vulnerable people working on them whose rights also need to be protected.
Tomorrow the House will debate the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Bill which will provide for equality in respect of basic working and employment conditions such as annual leave, work time, rest breaks, public holidays and pay. Our workers must be treated fairly with basic working, employment and pay conditions because we are seeing an increase in inequalities in our society. Deputy Alex White said he saw the Bill as a great achievement. He spoke about ideology. For me, ideology is based on principles of social justice and fairness which must be applied to those who are vulnerable and most in need of protection.
13 January 2012 Local Authority Public Administration Bill 2011: Second Stage
Click to hear Maureen speak
Opening events in the House this morning indicate that reform is very much on the agenda in order that when issues arise outside of Friday or normal Dáil sitting times they can be addressed.
I was co-opted on to Dublin City Council for the past few months of the previous term and speak from that point of view. Like other Members, I have extensive contact with local authorities. I share the frustration expressed in relation to local authority meetings at which many people speaking on the same topic often say the same thing but in many ways. Often people table issues by way of emergency motion expecting that to be the way forward but they simply remain on paper. At one meeting I attended a motion on schools was passed. I wondered at the time what the local authority had to do with schools yet an hour was spent discussing an issue in respect of which it had no role.
While this Bill deals with a particular issue, I would like to make some general points, in particular in regard to reform of local government in accordance with the programme for Government. The Government has set up a group entitled the Independent Local Government Efficiency Implementation Group, which as the Minister indicated in response to a parliamentary question, has met a number of times and will report at regular intervals. Perhaps the Minister will indicate at what stage the group is in terms of its work. Also, are community groups involved given they are the residents and groups whose lives are most impacted by the work of the local authority? The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, has stated that there will be a review of community employment schemes. I have asked that there be a random selection of participants on the schemes who could then have a direct input into the review. Likewise, a random selection of residents or community groups who are directly involved with the local authority could also be allowed to have an input into its review.
As in all organisations and institutions, there are people employed in the local authorities who do not work to the best of their ability or in a satisfactory manner. Dublin City Council - I will start with a negative and then move on to the positive - has been involved in controversial matters which have caused major difficulties for communities and in respect of which it was not seen to have been pro-community, including housing, services for the homeless and infrastructure. In my constituency of Dublin Central, there is repeated flooding. While the cause of this is known, little is being done about it. We all remember the floods of 24 October. Another problem is that of pyrite. Dublin City Council supported some very controversial planning applications and decisions which were to the detriment of the relevant communities. There has been neglect of areas and public private partnership has collapsed. Communities long neglected were given hope by public private partnerships, in respect of which there were wonderful plans for housing, community and youth facilities, landscaping and so on but these hopes have been dashed.
We need a task force to address the problem of litter, which is out of control in particular areas. An astronomical amount of money has been wasted on the incinerator and Dublin City Council has been lacking in respect of areas of conservation and preservation. I am sure this is not only happening in Dublin. Moore Street is a national disgrace rather than a national memorial to the men and women of 1916. It has been allowed to go to rack and ruin. It is hoped that in the time remaining before the 2016 celebrations, the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht can put in place a proper plan to ensure it will be a fitting memorial.
In spite of those negatives, I acknowledge the Dublin City Council staff with whom I am in contact daily. Those staff are located in the offices in Seán MacDermott Street, Parnell Street and in Cabra. I have a good relationship with staff in the homelessness and other sections. The staff with whom I have been dealing are committed and dedicated and work to the best of their ability. Some of them are currently doing double the amount of work as many of their colleagues who have retired or resigned have not been replaced. This week, I attended four local community meetings. The local authority staff also in attendance had the answers to the questions raised at a previous meeting some two months ago and have been following up on those issues.
I will outline some of the positives for Dublin City Council, including the library service, culture and the arts, parks and landscape, the manner in which it supports local neighbourhoods through the promotion of the environment and local events such as summer projects, playgrounds, sports officers, the bike scheme, which has been a great success and the recent use of public spaces. Also, it has been involved in some innovative housing schemes, including Wolfe Tone Close and the senior citizen housing in Aughrim Street, Clareville and North Wall. Before I became involved in politics I was on several committees, including the Young Peoples Facilities and Services Fund and the Cavan Centre which included representatives from the local authority, whose work was outstanding. There are many positives but the negatives must be tackled. This is at a time when local authority funding is being cut.
For me, reform must be meaningful and accountable. Local authorities must be professional in tackling the issues facing communities. This can be done by working with communities and dealing with situations before they become emergencies. Community must be at the centre and there must be meaningful and not confrontational consultation involved. I support the Bill in terms of accountability. I point out that on each occasion I, as a public representative, have put a question to or contacted an office it did not take 15 or 20 days for me to get a response: I got a quick response. The difficulty is that people are unable to get a response to their questions and must resort to their public representative in this regard. Sometimes the response received is not a reply to the question asked or the answer is vague or general. This is the reason the inclusion of the word “substantive” in the Bill is very important.
Section 3(c) refers to when “the local authority does not have access to the information that is required in order to provide a substantive reply to the request sought in the written communication”. There is a need to include a provision to the effect that the local authority will undertake to get it, to prevent the case going to the Ombudsman because that office already has enough work to do and this would be adding to it. In this context, Members are considering the Bill at a time when the number of local authority staff has been reduced. I do not favour the spending of an inordinate amount of time by local authority staff on following up questions were this to mean front-line services would be neglected. There must be a balance struck in this regard.
The issue of where power rests within a local authority must be addressed because in some local authorities power is being taken from the elected representatives. I will conclude by noting the Minister has proposed a greater alignment of community and enterprise functions with the local government system in accordance with the programme of Government. He should indicate precisely what is meant by this because there have been attacks on and has been an undermining of community development, which is a shame.
Phil HoganTD, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government I give the highest priority to the devolution of power from central government to local government. In the coming months, I will discuss with the Government and the Oireachtas how this will occur. To give local authorities an opportunity, I will ask them to meet their statutory requirements in terms of public representation and to implement the regulations on customer service charters and action plans in the prescribed manner.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan mentioned her concern about the way we are heading in terms of community groups and local government. I value the role of each community group, be its work focusing on enterprise, community development or social support. I want to harness the groups’ potential in line with local government so that we might have a synergy of personnel and resources and allow for a more effective delivery of service to citizens. I do not intend to leave the local government system the way it is. Given the times we are in, its service delivery to citizens must be more efficient and effective. Substantial reform in terms of the devolution of powers and responsibility is also necessary.
I was co-opted on to Dublin City Council for the past few months of the previous term and speak from that point of view. Like other Members, I have extensive contact with local authorities. I share the frustration expressed in relation to local authority meetings at which many people speaking on the same topic often say the same thing but in many ways. Often people table issues by way of emergency motion expecting that to be the way forward but they simply remain on paper. At one meeting I attended a motion on schools was passed. I wondered at the time what the local authority had to do with schools yet an hour was spent discussing an issue in respect of which it had no role.
While this Bill deals with a particular issue, I would like to make some general points, in particular in regard to reform of local government in accordance with the programme for Government. The Government has set up a group entitled the Independent Local Government Efficiency Implementation Group, which as the Minister indicated in response to a parliamentary question, has met a number of times and will report at regular intervals. Perhaps the Minister will indicate at what stage the group is in terms of its work. Also, are community groups involved given they are the residents and groups whose lives are most impacted by the work of the local authority? The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, has stated that there will be a review of community employment schemes. I have asked that there be a random selection of participants on the schemes who could then have a direct input into the review. Likewise, a random selection of residents or community groups who are directly involved with the local authority could also be allowed to have an input into its review.
As in all organisations and institutions, there are people employed in the local authorities who do not work to the best of their ability or in a satisfactory manner. Dublin City Council - I will start with a negative and then move on to the positive - has been involved in controversial matters which have caused major difficulties for communities and in respect of which it was not seen to have been pro-community, including housing, services for the homeless and infrastructure. In my constituency of Dublin Central, there is repeated flooding. While the cause of this is known, little is being done about it. We all remember the floods of 24 October. Another problem is that of pyrite. Dublin City Council supported some very controversial planning applications and decisions which were to the detriment of the relevant communities. There has been neglect of areas and public private partnership has collapsed. Communities long neglected were given hope by public private partnerships, in respect of which there were wonderful plans for housing, community and youth facilities, landscaping and so on but these hopes have been dashed.
We need a task force to address the problem of litter, which is out of control in particular areas. An astronomical amount of money has been wasted on the incinerator and Dublin City Council has been lacking in respect of areas of conservation and preservation. I am sure this is not only happening in Dublin. Moore Street is a national disgrace rather than a national memorial to the men and women of 1916. It has been allowed to go to rack and ruin. It is hoped that in the time remaining before the 2016 celebrations, the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht can put in place a proper plan to ensure it will be a fitting memorial.
In spite of those negatives, I acknowledge the Dublin City Council staff with whom I am in contact daily. Those staff are located in the offices in Seán MacDermott Street, Parnell Street and in Cabra. I have a good relationship with staff in the homelessness and other sections. The staff with whom I have been dealing are committed and dedicated and work to the best of their ability. Some of them are currently doing double the amount of work as many of their colleagues who have retired or resigned have not been replaced. This week, I attended four local community meetings. The local authority staff also in attendance had the answers to the questions raised at a previous meeting some two months ago and have been following up on those issues.
I will outline some of the positives for Dublin City Council, including the library service, culture and the arts, parks and landscape, the manner in which it supports local neighbourhoods through the promotion of the environment and local events such as summer projects, playgrounds, sports officers, the bike scheme, which has been a great success and the recent use of public spaces. Also, it has been involved in some innovative housing schemes, including Wolfe Tone Close and the senior citizen housing in Aughrim Street, Clareville and North Wall. Before I became involved in politics I was on several committees, including the Young Peoples Facilities and Services Fund and the Cavan Centre which included representatives from the local authority, whose work was outstanding. There are many positives but the negatives must be tackled. This is at a time when local authority funding is being cut.
For me, reform must be meaningful and accountable. Local authorities must be professional in tackling the issues facing communities. This can be done by working with communities and dealing with situations before they become emergencies. Community must be at the centre and there must be meaningful and not confrontational consultation involved. I support the Bill in terms of accountability. I point out that on each occasion I, as a public representative, have put a question to or contacted an office it did not take 15 or 20 days for me to get a response: I got a quick response. The difficulty is that people are unable to get a response to their questions and must resort to their public representative in this regard. Sometimes the response received is not a reply to the question asked or the answer is vague or general. This is the reason the inclusion of the word “substantive” in the Bill is very important.
Section 3(c) refers to when “the local authority does not have access to the information that is required in order to provide a substantive reply to the request sought in the written communication”. There is a need to include a provision to the effect that the local authority will undertake to get it, to prevent the case going to the Ombudsman because that office already has enough work to do and this would be adding to it. In this context, Members are considering the Bill at a time when the number of local authority staff has been reduced. I do not favour the spending of an inordinate amount of time by local authority staff on following up questions were this to mean front-line services would be neglected. There must be a balance struck in this regard.
The issue of where power rests within a local authority must be addressed because in some local authorities power is being taken from the elected representatives. I will conclude by noting the Minister has proposed a greater alignment of community and enterprise functions with the local government system in accordance with the programme of Government. He should indicate precisely what is meant by this because there have been attacks on and has been an undermining of community development, which is a shame.
Phil HoganTD, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government I give the highest priority to the devolution of power from central government to local government. In the coming months, I will discuss with the Government and the Oireachtas how this will occur. To give local authorities an opportunity, I will ask them to meet their statutory requirements in terms of public representation and to implement the regulations on customer service charters and action plans in the prescribed manner.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan mentioned her concern about the way we are heading in terms of community groups and local government. I value the role of each community group, be its work focusing on enterprise, community development or social support. I want to harness the groups’ potential in line with local government so that we might have a synergy of personnel and resources and allow for a more effective delivery of service to citizens. I do not intend to leave the local government system the way it is. Given the times we are in, its service delivery to citizens must be more efficient and effective. Substantial reform in terms of the devolution of powers and responsibility is also necessary.
