Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

The significant degree of consensus on this Bill is welcome. Deputy Howlin summed it up earlier when he said it is a Bill more suited than most to Committee Stage because there are many fine points to consider. In general, it seems to be a Bill about which everybody has some positive comments to make. It has been a long time coming. As far back as five years ago, there was an awareness of the difficulties arising from the fact that permits were in the hands of employers rather than employees. That situation is now being rectified and we are working to empower workers and secure their rights.

I begin by noting that I often have reason to complain about the drafting of Bills. I have some small amount of legal training but I find it incredibly difficult to read some sections, in particular section 2 which replaces parts of section 2 of the 2003 Act. More effort could be made to simplify the manner in which legislative provisions are expressed.

In view of our long history of emigration, Bills such as this have a particular importance. It would be a pity if our modern laws ignored the sad history of migration from this country. In this context, it is important that we deal not merely with the nuts and bolts of migration policy but that we also safeguard the dignity of workers and ensure they feel welcome. Policy should be based on this welcoming imperative apart altogether from the specific rights set out in this Bill.

We have experienced net immigration from non-English speaking countries for the last several years and this is creating social changes. We cannot go into this blind and it is insufficient to deal only with the issue of permits. We must consider the economic and cultural impact of all this change. An important issue in this regard is the question of migrant workers being joined by their families.

We are in the fortunate position of being a "new country" in terms of net immigration. We can learn the lessons from other countries which have already experienced such migration, going back to the United States in the 19th century and western Europe in the last century. The system in place is quite clear and the proposed changes represent a vast improvement.

One area of caution relates to student permits. Thousands of people have been granted such permits which generously allow the holder to engage in 20 hours of paid work per week. It would be foolish not to acknowledge that many of these permit holders work far more than 20 hours per week and, as such, are important players in the economy. Future legislation must deal with the transition from student to work permits. At present, people with student permits must return home when their permit has expired and apply for a work permit. This is a bureaucratic solution to a practical problem and it should be regularised.

A famous meeting took place in Tampere in Finland in 1999 at which attempts were made to devise an EU-wide migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States security became the dominant theme of discussions on migration and, as a result, there was no progress for a long period. The need for skilled workers in the European economy is well recognised. Many commentators have spoken about the greying of the population in western Europe — although this is less apparent in Ireland — and the need to bring in workers from non-EEA countries so that we can continue to generate the wealth required to fund the social requirements of an older population.

We must encourage the migration of skilled workers for the maximum benefit of the economy. However, statistics indicate that 75% of work permit holders are engaged in unskilled occupations. This is a problem because we should be targeting highly skilled workers rather than simply catering to the areas of highest demand. It seems many of the permit holders working in unskilled areas are well educated or skilled in other areas. A pattern is emerging where people are coming to Ireland to work in unskilled jobs, whether in restaurants, as au pairs and so on, with a view to climbing the skills ladder subsequently and finding permanent work in an area in which they are trained. This is an issue that should be considered in the context of this Bill and in terms of the objectives of our immigration policy. The theory is that the work permit holder is supposed to return once the temporary need he or she has met no longer exists. In reality, however, many of them remain. Not only are they staying here but their families are coming to Ireland to reunify. There is some provision for that in the Bill and it is welcome.

One of the criticisms of the permanent migration policy, the green card system, is that a person is allowed to come into the country because the Department recognises the high demand area or an area that needs future skills as identified by Forfás. By its nature, the Department will be slow to react to new areas of high demand. A provision in the Bill allows the Department to review this issue every two years. I suggest there should be a continuous review of the high areas of demand and changes made accordingly.

In Israel low-skilled immigrant labourers are required to save a part of their earnings which is returned to them in bulk when they leave to create movement. That is not practical here. Once migrant labour is welcomed into the country one has to allow for the possibility that they may want to remain and that there will be reunification with their families. This is the reality on the ground, it is how Irish migration developed in America and England. People went out for specific jobs, their families followed and, sadly, whole parishes emptied in many cases.

In the Joint Committee on European Affairs recently we discussed human trafficking. At that meeting the old work permit system was criticised. Unfortunately, much human trafficking is occurring on the strength of properly issued work permits which were then retained under the previous system. The criticism I heard last week of the Bill, however, as it relates to human trafficking is not fair. Trafficking is a matter for the Garda and immigration officials.

SIPTU has indicated the need for more resources for labour inspectors to ensure rights are not being ignored. Section 21 provides for the appointment of authorised officers. Section 21(4) provides that an authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any premises, place or vehicle while the various subsections grant extraordinary powers to those officers. A person can refuse to allow an authorised officer to enter his or her premises but will then face a warrant to allow for the searching of the premises. The Garda Síochána Bill requires that the ombudsman give notice to a Garda sergeant in charge before entering a station to carry out a search but there is no similar provision in this Bill. The Bill should provide for a notice period so the investigation may take place in a proper and less dramatic fashion.

See this speech in context