Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I welcome aspects of the Bill but I would have preferred if the House were discussing this legislation along with or following the Government's proposals for an immigration and residence Bill. I see areas of overlap between the functions of the two Departments and between the two Bills.

A practical problem arises from the drafting of these Bills. If one speaks about approved units of required labour, one will arrive at a very different set of conclusions than if one talks about workers' rights. I commend Deputy Dennehy's contribution and his reference to bonded labour, slavery and the Truck Acts; I totally agree with him. There are those who instead of speaking of the rights or workers, citizens and residents would like to have an uncontrolled situation of a low labour economy where workers' rights are stripped away. I hope such people hear a message from all sides of this House of deep disapproval for their actions and the attendant consequences.

I would have preferred if the legislation relating to immigration and residence had been taken before this Bill and if the United Nations Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families had been discussed. This UN instrument was adopted in 1990 and signed by Ireland. It had a ratification requirement of 20 and entered into force in July 2003 having passed that ratification threshold. If the convention had been in force, it would have protected workers in a much more general sense. It refers to frontier workers who reside in a neighbouring state and deals with the issue of circular migration and seasonal workers. It contains a specific reference to seafarers employed on vessels registered in a state other than their own, which is currently germane. I do not wish to argue about the responsibilities of Ministers but the ratification of this convention would be of immense value.

The convention also deals with an issue which will need to be addressed in any adequate immigration and residence Bill and it arises to some extent in the Minister's proposals — the information to which people are entitled. This Bill will deal with workplace information to which people are entitled but it would be ideal if this legislation was being run along with an adequate immigration and residence Bill because it could offer clarification and transparency on applications, appeals, social welfare rights and education rights.

The United Nations Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families deals with such issues. Its attraction is that it goes beyond the narrow framework of a required and approved unit of labour. The importance of implementation is raised in this legislation and will arise in the other legislation.

Those in charge of eliminating abuses or assuring compliance with the law relating to workers' rights are of the view that 50 inspectors are required. The Minister proposes 31 posts, an increase of 50% on the current complement of 21 inspectors but those charged with the responsibility for implementation have recommended a total of 50 inspectors.

Many speakers have made the distinction between this proposal, which is effectively a labour visa programme, and a green card programme. There is a fundamental difference between the green card system of the United States, which gives one the opportunity to progress to permanence and be enabled to enter the society, and this programme. I stress the phrase "enter the society". There are those who argue that one should be able to recruit people for the economy without necessarily allowing them the full benefits of citizenship rights within the society. This is a perilous road to go and is contrary the best practice of evolving international law and migrant rights.

How can we make a case for someone who accompanies a worker under this legislation? We argue in favour of the solidarity of family for good reasons in the case we are making for the Kennedy-McCain legislation.

Many years ago I studied migration in my other life. Certain distinct changes took place in the pattern of migration. Pre-Famine migration from Ireland was circular in that people left for the season. Deputy Dennehy made a good point in his argument against those who scaremonger. He asked the House to remember that some of the bothy fires in Scotland were associated with a deep apprehension of the impact of Irish workers on agricultural wages. People migrated for seasonal work and on their return experienced a rise in costs and excessive interest charged by the gombeen class entering the grocery trade at the time.

Migration to the United States began with the Famine. The major migrations were in the 1950s and between 1955 and 1960 more than one quarter of a million people emigrated, with the figure never dropping below 40,000 and usually nearer 60,000. In 1955 the figure was 58,000. This emigration was from rural areas, the people being lucky if they achieved primary school education. The males went into unskilled occupations and the females took up a broader range of occupations but mostly entered services.

The emigration of the 1980s was entirely different as it was primarily urban-sourced involving people who had a higher level of education and there was a dispersal into a wider range of occupations. In the 1980s, circular migration had replaced the main pattern of emigration and became the predominant type. Circular migration means that people return rather than emigrating forever.

People should be allowed be reunited with their families at significant events such as funerals, marriages and deaths, as was argued in the context of the Kennedy-McCain legislation. To be credible we should accord the same principle to those who come here. Who wants to say to people that they are allowed to come, not for five years but for two years and with no prospect of ever becoming permanent residents? In fact, if one was to seek to bring any of one's relatives here, one would run into the visa requirements of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who might well find that one's significant other is telling a cock and bull story at Dublin Airport and if he had time himself, he would go out to send him or her back home.

We cannot have it both ways. I suggest that the fundamental principle is the one with which I began, namely that we talk about workers, their families and their rights, internationally. The discussion should be grounded and founded in rights. That is what is contained in the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. That is a convention that accepts the principles of many other conventions and deals with short-term workers and so forth. Our aim should be to ratify that convention, regard it as the bedrock and then move towards the Government's proposals for an Immigration and Residents Bill, where we will then be able to fit in the concerns of the economy. In other words, the needs of the economy should not be the starting point but should come far later, if one approaches this issue from a rights perspective.

In the legislation as I read it — although we can tease this all out in the debate on Committee Stage — there is no transfer of access to employment to the employee. Effectively, as I understand it, the worker will be able to get a piece of paper indicating that he or she has permission to stay. Has that worker the right, for example, to initiate the application of another employer? I do not think so. The worker must find another employer who is willing to make an application.

A further problem arises in that many migrant workers who would be regarded by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as illegal, or out-of-status people, are people who began here legally. Under the old system, where the employer got the permit, if a worker had any difficulty, he or she falls out of legal status. There were also many unscrupulous employers who took people on and told them that they were applying for a permit. They assured workers that they were applying for permits but during that time, such workers had no rights at all.

There is an old, fundamental question that applies to this legislation as to why the dogs are not barking, given the absence of a stated opinion from IBEC. This legislation is somewhat soft with regard to the requirements it makes of IBEC. Frankly, the legislation as outlined is a description of a system of guest workers rather than a green card system, certainly by comparison with, for example, the Morrison system.

I have said I welcome provisions in the legislation and do so wholeheartedly. The idea that an employer could take the papers of an employee, hold them and use them as a threat over the employee, is, and always was, outrageous. I would have gone farther in the legislation with regard to the regulation and sanctions for the contract worker sector, where some of the abuses of employees have been most acute.

We are at a point where people on all sides of this House will have to decide where they stand on versions of the economy. In the United States last year, blue collar workers worked 240 hours longer than they did in the 1970s to retain the same purchasing power. If IBEC wants to engage in a confrontation with the people here, let us have it out in the open. I believe that IBEC is a disgrace, given its stated opinion on the Irish Ferries issue. I also believe that its behaviour regarding what happened in Aer Lingus, where people were effectively coerced out of their jobs, was quite disgraceful. IBEC did not dissociate itself from that situation. Nor has it been in a position to state that it does not run seminars providing information on how to get rid of employees or make them insecure.

We have all had lectures on social partnership. The reason Irish workers have one of the highest rates of productivity in Europe is not only to do with wages but with the attitudes towards work and employment here. We cannot degrade work to the level of so-called units of labour, provided in a context without rights, which is what IBEC would like, ideally. If IBEC disagrees with that, it must show us the evidence. It is not only on these issues that the organisation has been silent. One only has to think of IBEC members in the Irish banking system, speaking of clean governance or corporate responsibility. Such words should turn to ashes in their mouths, given the appalling levels of high remuneration that non-executive directors are drawing from the banking sector, which nobody can justify. The average worker is asked what he or she is doing and the dignity of work is associated with the nature of productivity. However, it seems to me that for some people work is only a matter of what they can consume at the trough.

It is encouraging to find that there are no people in this House standing up for this William Martin Murphy version of industrial relations. I welcome that. I also think that if the Government had ratified the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, it would be in a strong position to protect maritime workers. It is a great pity, if not a tragedy, that the Government was one of those that blocked a European directive prepared by the EU Commission that would have protected seafarers.

On examining this legislation, one must bear in mind the nature of migration and recognise that we are dealing with a worldwide phenomenon. The International Organization for Migration has calculated that in any one year, 175 million migrants are moving in different parts of the world. This raises a fundamental issue if one is framing thinking and policy in this area. Capital is now able to move in real time, but migratory flows are slower. However, that does not mean one should give fewer rights to migrants. It simply means that the condition is more acute.

I have outlined the aspects of the Bill that I welcome but it will, unfortunately, formalise a two-tier system. We will not be within an ass's roar of a rights perspective if we are giving different kinds of rights and very limited entitlements to people, based on income and salary. This is a visa system and not a green card system, certainly not by comparison with Bruce Morrison's approach. It is, in fact, a permit system. With regard to the initiation of the permit the Bill does not transfer rights fully to the employee. The employee is still stuck with the task of finding an employer. Furthermore, even when a non-national worker seeks a permit it is at the invitation of an employer. These are defects in the Bill.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment referred in his speech to a labour market of 20 million and a labour force of 2 million. This fact makes it all the more urgent that we make it clear that when working in Ireland, people will be working in an environment and context in which there is appreciation of workers and guarantees of their rights. That is the position that we must ensure prevails here.

Thankfully, there is no support for driving us down into a low-wage economy. Unfortunately, most of the abuses that have been noticed by the Immigrant Council of Ireland and others, have been perpetrated against very weak and vulnerable people. There have been outrageous abuses.

I appeal for an adequate inspectorate. There is no point in stating that the inspectorate has increased by 50%, when it has only risen from 20 to 30 inspectors. The inspectors themselves say that the inspectorate needs a staff of 50 to do its job effectively. I appeal to the Minister to have such consultations as will implement the improvements suggested in the legislation between now and the Committee Stage debate.

See this speech in context