Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address the two amendments. Our intention would have been not to accept amendment No. 19 because of its wording and also because figuring out how to operationalise, monitor and control it would have been difficult. I understand the sentiment. I know Deputies O'Reilly and Stanton and others will agree. We can look at that when we are dealing with the protections on Report Stage. At the moment, we already have measures to protect lower-wage permit holders from being overcharged for board and accommodation. Any accommodation deductions cannot result in the net salary paid falling below the minimum threshold for the permit type. In addition, for certain roles with a salary under the €30,000 threshold, such as a meat processing operative or horticulture worker, there is a specific requirement that the minimum annual remuneration threshold be in addition to the provision of suitable accommodation.

I think the concern here is about whether accommodation is suitable and so on. I will look at that with the Deputies to see what we can do. It might not be in our gift as a Department to police that element or to link it to the market value, as the Deputy suggests, but I will talk to various Departments to see if we could do more in that area to allay concerns and fears. Nobody wants the situation that the Deputy described. That is not what is envisaged at all. Is that okay for now? I cannot agree to it. I know the Deputy is not pressing it because we will engage further about it. We will see if we can do more on that.

The proposal in amendment No. 18, regarding equality legislation, is unnecessary in our view. We are confident that foreign nationals are protected in the same way as Irish workers by virtue of the existing equality legislation and penalties contained therein. Under the Employment Permits Act, the Minister may refuse an application where either the employer or employee has received a conviction under the employment permit or employment rights legislation in the previous five years. Changing this to three years would restrict our ability to review this. I know that is not what the Deputy meant. At the moment, there is a five-year period rather than a three-year period. Discretion to review, rather than a mandatory review as proposed, is necessary, since each case should be judged on its merits, taking into account mitigating factors and changes put in place to address any breach to ensure it cannot recur in the interim. Discretion is also necessary where a blanket refusal may have unintended consequences, such as preventing current workers from renewing their permits even though they are innocent parties. We think discretion should remain and that it is covered already for up to five years.