In recent weeks a plethora of cases involving gross exploitation of Irish workers and, in particular, migrant workers in vulnerable situations by a range of employers have emerged. In the case of the Dublin Port tunnel, it was discovered that 40 Polish workers were being paid half the rate applicable to their Irish counterparts. The employees to whom I refer were also forced to work excessive hours. In addition, other irregularities also emerged. In Mullingar, migrant workers — bricklayers and blocklayers — were forced to go on strike.

It is not appropriate to name firms which are not in a position to defend themselves.

I did not name anybody.

The Deputy did name them.

The Deputy merely indicated where the employees in question were working.

I did not name any firm. I referred to a case in Mullingar involving the gross exploitation of workers. As regards women in domestic service and those working in the care area, the Migrant Rights Centre has documented cases of low pay, excessive working hours, illegal deductions and the fear of deportation if these individuals come forward. There is a major problem in this area.

Does the Taoiseach agree with the trade union activist who stated that the resources the Government provides to root out these abuses are pitiful? I am informed that there are at least 40 dog wardens in the State. There are at least as many rogue bosses as there are mad dogs in the country but there are only 21 labour inspectors. I accept that these inspectors are hard-working and conscientious. However, with the rate of abuse and the fact that there are almost 2 million workers, the resources are completely inadequate. This is a matter of the greatest gravity, involving immoral exploitation. The rogue employers to whom I refer undermine the wages and conditions of all workers. However, those wages and conditions give the latter an edge when it comes to bidding for contracts against firms that pay proper rates and offer their employees proper conditions.

This is a matter of great concern to Independent Deputies from across the country who informed me about similar cases. We want a commitment from the Taoiseach in respect of it. Will he massively increase resources to double or treble the number of personnel employed by the labour inspectorate? In addition, we are seeking that the inspectorate have an office not only in Dublin but one in each of the regions so that it will be easily accessible for workers who need its services. Will the Taoiseach give the inspectors sufficient resources to enable them to be proactive in terms of seeking out exploitation and abuse and in circumventing the front of respectability the exploiters are experts at putting up? The workers who are the victims are often afraid to come forward and, therefore, there must be a sufficient number of inspectors to approach them so that we might root out this immorality that is affecting employment practices.

Deputy Joe Higgins is correct that this matter has arisen in the House on a number of recent occasions. The Minister has, on each occasion, contacted the Deputies who raised it seeking the information in their possession. I understand Deputy Joe Higgins brought an independent councillor to meet the Minister and that the latter was given some information relating to a Polish firm which is being examined.

The pay and conditions of the workers concerned appear to fall within the scope of the construction industry's registered employment agreement. Under that agreement, the statutory minimum rate is applicable to the highest grade of construction operative. While this is not in line with the industry or going rate, it is normally a matter for the parties concerned to regularise the position. It has been pointed out publicly to the workers involved in any of these cases that they are Europeans and come within the ambit of Irish labour legislation. The Minister, Deputy Martin, has considered some of the contracts and the Department is examining a number of clarifications.

There is no differentiation in terms of the statutory minimum rates of pay or conditions of employment between any workers in specific categories. Such workers enjoy equal access to the various redress mechanisms the relevant legislation provides. We have pointed this out to them. None of the workers concerned and none of the firms concerned has registered a formal complaint with the labour inspectorate, even though we have made the position clear through the trade unions.

In terms of the number of cases they are obliged to check, the staff at the inspectorate are not snowed under because no such cases have been brought to their attention. They are proactively checking the sources to whom Deputies have referred in the House. To date, they have not had to do a great deal of investigation because very little evidence has been put forward. I reiterate that if Members on any side of the House have information about this matter, they should make it available. At this stage, all we have is one contract in our possession and this is being examined.

The Taoiseach rambled incoherently. I do not know what he was talking about.

I know the Deputy does not know what I am talking about. The Deputy was asked to produce the evidence and he has not done so.

A number of Deputies have submitted questions.

The Taoiseach must withdraw that immediately. He is obviously completely ignorant and does not know what he is talking about. I will give him an opportunity.

Deputy Joe Higgins, without interruption. He has one minute left.

I know the facts. The Deputy should be careful what he says because I know what happened.

I invite the Taoiseach to give the facts——

I will give the full facts in a minute.

Deputy Joe Higgins should be allowed to submit his questions, without interruption.

——because he obviously did not listen to what was a general question about the position of migrant workers. On the complaint I raised two weeks ago, I am satisfied that this is being taken seriously, so I have not raised that today. However, the Taoiseach must withdraw the assertion that I have not brought the evidence I had to the attention of the official inspectorate, because that is completely wrong and false. I give the Taoiseach the benefit of perhaps not being aware of this, since he will not know everything that happens. I am aware he knows most things, but not everything. He will have to withdraw that when he gets up.

The minute has concluded.

In view of the fact that the Taoiseach-——

I have allowed injury time for that.

Yes, but the Taoiseach diverted. I was asking him about the position of migrant workers generally. The Taoiseach seems to say there is not a problem. Migrant workers, in some cases, are being treated as shamefully as our countrymen and countrywomen in a different epoch, when they were building the railroads in the United States or carrying the hod to the top of the London skyline. Some conditions have not changed. What we are calling for is a doubling of the inspectorate, at least, so that these abuses can be rooted out and so that the inspectors may be proactive. Many complaints are coming in from around the country from workers and from many advocates who work with migrants, in particular.

Deputy Joe Higgins raised one case in the House and I asked the Minister immediately to follow it up. I am not arguing about that case. At the time the Deputy said he would get the information about that case, which he did, and we have investigated it. However, the labour inspectorate nor any of the workers concerned in that case have registered a formal complaint. We have examined the contract, but no formal complaint has been lodged. Most of the workers coming here are from three categories. Polish workers represent about 47%, Lithuanians more than 27% and about 12% are Latvians.

These are European workers and all of our Irish labour legislation is compatible with their requirements. We have made it absolutely clear at every level, through companies, chambers of commerce, trades councils, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and all its affiliates, that this is the position. Some employers seem to be paying the rate as set down in the registered employment agreement for the construction industry, the REA, as it has been known for 30 years, not the going rate. For the benefit of Deputy Joe Higgins and anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations, it is not only workers from outside the State who fall into this category. That has been regular practice by employers and in law it is matter for the parties concerned to regularise whatever contract is in place. In so far as there is any information, the inspectors are dealing with that. My point is that there is very little information. A number of people have raised this issue, but there is very little hard information. Any information forthcoming will be investigated.

As regards some of the non-European countries, if the Deputy is raising that issue today it is a separate question. I appreciate there have been more complaints in that regard concerning people who come here from Nigeria, Bulgaria and Romania. However, we have been treating Romania and Bulgaria as accession countries, even though their citizens do not come under the same agreement, and they are enjoying the same conditions as Irish workers. These matters are being investigated. If it becomes a case that requires more resources, the answer to Deputy Joe Higgins is that it will have to be better resourced. However, there is a genuine attempt to investigate comprehensively, as the Deputy has accepted, any of these cases as they arise. It is not acceptable under Irish labour law that employers treat these people differently to what is set down in the legislation. I have gone out of my way to make that clear, by every means possible, to protect vulnerable people who might be abused.