Ms Edel McGinley:

I thank the Chair. I am a director at MRCI. I am joined by Ms Korotkevica and Mr. Bruton, who will be helping me with some questions later. MRCI has been working with migrant workers in low-wage and precarious sectors for almost two decades, including across the agrifood, fisheries, childcare, home care, hotel and catering and security sectors. We make this interjection in a context broader than just that of the agrifood sector.

Ireland continues to be very positive for people who migrate here for work although we have seen poor conditions for workers exposed in many sectors of the labour market. In this context, there are three important points we want to communicate to the committee. First, we would like to see this Bill give equal rights and parity to all employment permit holders, similar to those given through critical skill permits. Second, we disagree with the concept of seasonal work permits and temporary work permits that move. If the Government pursues this approach, it needs to provide measures that allow people to easily transition to longer-term status and other work. We would also like to see a provision in the Bill that allows access to the workplace relations bodies, not just the civil courts, for all workers, including undocumented workers.

Are the committee members comfortable treating migrant workers differently from other workers and differently from each other. The way our system is set up pits people against each other. It believes an IT developer is better than a meat factory worker. The intention of this Bill is to make the employment permit system more responsible and flexible to the needs of the labour market.

That is not a bad thing per se. However, flexibility with limited rights is dangerous. Our 20 years’ experience shows us that limiting rights puts workers in more vulnerable situations, contributes to exploitation, pushes people into irregularity and limits progression, family formation and family reunion.

Throughout the pandemic, essential workers have been picking and packing food and putting it on our tables. Many have cared for loved ones. This Bill was developed in 2019 when times were very different. There is now much more appreciation for essential workers and for the work that people do. We need to ask and answer a number of questions in this regard. Why does this Bill not recognise essential workers? Why are they been treated as less deserving of rights because the consideration is not being given?

Ireland already operates an onerous and complex immigration and labour migration system to manage migration. We have measures to safeguard the prioritisation of Irish and EU workers through tests for labour market needs, some of which will change. Measures are also in place to ensure that the ratio of non-EU workers does not surpass 50% of workforce. Several occupations are deemed ineligible for the purpose of employment permits applications. These are reviewed biannually.

Why do we penalise workers' rights by limiting their mobility? Why are we introducing more temporary arrangements and permits? Arguments against labour mobility - the right to change employer - often centre on protecting employers’ interests, particularly in the context of workers leaving soon after arrival and fear of posts remaining vacant, with employers unable to recoup the costs associated with employment permit applications. Our experience shows, however, that when people are treated fairly, workers will stay in work. This means being paid well, having good conditions, including sick pay, feeling respected and being able to progress in their workplaces. All evidence indicates that people who arrive on work permits are not here temporarily, as the system supposes. People come, settle, put down roots and stay.

We have an opportunity now to stop and reflect on our current employment permit system. Is it fit for purpose? Does it do what we need it to do? Is there a better way to safeguard and enhance workers’ rights? We believe the Bill is not in favour of workers' rights and runs contrary to them. MRCI’s work over the years has shown that migrant workers find it hard to access their family rights, progress in the labour market and access legal redress if they are irregular. None of this will change under the Bill.

We are concerned that the Bill gives the Minister enhanced discretion and powers through the use of regulation. This discretion is not balanced by enhanced and strengthened protections and rights for workers, especially in light of proposals to increase the use of temporary permits. We are deeply concerned that the needs of industry and employers are favoured without a similar level of consideration given to the rights of workers and the protections relating to them.

The Bill needs to give parity to all workers on employment permits by giving gradual mobility to all general employment permit holders, similar to that already in place for critical skills permit holders. In effect this means full access to the labour market after two years, immediate rights to family reunion and the right to work for spouses and partners. This will help to simplify and streamline the employment permits system and negate the need for a range of schemes, regulations and administrative processes.

We are very concerned about the introduction of new short-term temporary permits. It is well documented that when temporary migration systems do not offer safeguards, some employers may take advantage of this power imbalance, creating a vulnerable workforce that are potentially forced into irregularity. If the Bill continues with this approach, then measures need to be put in place to allow people who are recruited temporarily, such as seasonal workers, to transition into longer-term status in other work.

MRCI believes that all work is work. We believe that undocumented migrant workers perform work just like other workers and should be protected by the same rights and regulations as other workers. Consequently, they should have access to the workplace relations bodies, which are the appropriate bodies to deal with this, and not the civil courts. This needs to be amended.

The Bill also references a remuneration review. We caution against an approach that does not meaningfully engage with workers or worker rights representatives.

It needs to be strengthened across the legislation. There is also a significant challenge in making a submission with a lack of clarity and detail in the Bill in its entirety. Finally, we see the Bill as creating more layers and not fewer, and it will serve to segregate people. We are not sure what special needs permits would be, for example, or perceived lower-end seasonal work permits. I thank the committee and welcome questions from the members.