Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tá sé go maith go bhfuil muid ag díriú isteach ar cheist cheadúnais fostaíochta. Ceist mhór í atá ag déanamh tinnis do mórán daoine, ní amháin na daoine atá gafa leis na ceadúnais. Labhair an Teachta Arthur Morgan níos luaithe agus mar urlabhraí Shinn Féin ar cheart, comhionannas agus cearta daonna, ba mhaith liom gnéithe áirithe sa Bhille a ardú.

Conas a bhuanaíonn an Bille seo na polasaithe cuimsitheacha inimirce ar bhonn cearta daonna? Ba chóir dúinn sin a dhéanamh ach níl aon fhianaise sa Bhille go bhfuil an straitéis sin ann.

Teipeann ar an Bhille déileáil leis an cheist mhór, ceist na sclábhaíochta agus cé chomh leochaileach agus atá daoine atá sa staid sin. Cuireann sé in iúl cé chomh fimíneach is atá an Rialtas nár chuir sé aon fhorálacha sa Bhille a léireodh conas a dhéanfar oibrithe atá neamhchláraithe faoi láthair a chlárú agus a tharraingt isteach sa chóras mar a mhol muid an tseachtain seo caite d'Éireannaigh sna Stáit Aontaithe.

There are a number of questions I would like to pose in addition to those already raised. How will this Bill fit with the proposed immigration and residents Bill, which is expected in late 2006? That should have been the first item with subsequent legislation amended accordingly.

The Employment Permits Bill is inseparable from the broader immigration agenda of the Government and it is another example of the ad hoc, piecemeal approach the Government takes to immigration policy. Have the Minister and officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment actively engaged with the Minister and officials at the Department of Justice, Equality, and Law Reform to ensure there is a coherent approach to immigration? I see no evidence of it so far. Will elements of this Bill become obsolete on foot of promised legislation, namely the immigration and residents Bill?

Sinn Féin has repeatedly called for a well thought out, comprehensive immigration policy reform package. This would include the introduction of a positive immigration policy, underpinned by respect for human rights and a family-centred ethos appropriately reflecting an emphatic understanding gained through the experiences of our emigrants. This should recognise the significant potential contribution of migrants to our society.

In contrast, the ad hoc approach to immigration displayed by the Government, in the form of knee jerk responses to a so-called crisis and the cosmetic reforms introduced in particular by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has resulted in a collage of policies with no common raison d'être. This approach seems to be filling gaps in the domestic labour market and the common function seems to be to reduce migrants to economic units. That is a pity as we still have an opportunity to address immigration in a positive, human rights centred manner.

This Bill proposes to do no more than place existing policies on visas and work permits on a statutory footing. In stipulating the criteria to guide ministerial discretion it defines the public interest very narrowly, in terms of public order, national security, health and safety and the need to protect the labour market. It does not address fundamental issues that should be considered in determining the public interest, such as integration and family reunification. These would be required if it was a policy genuinely based on human rights.

I am concerned by the Bill's failure to reverse the current scenario whereby migrant workers are bound to one employer. This increases their vulnerability to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Simply posting a copy of the document to a migrant worker does nothing to change the situation of bonded labour.

As a result the Bill will fail to impact in a positive manner on trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Last week the Joint Committee on European Affairs heard evidence of what is happening in Europe and here. While there is a lack of solid data on trafficking in Ireland, figures from European Parliament research indicate large numbers of women are trafficked from eastern to western Europe each year for the purpose of prostitution. The failure of this Bill to guarantee all migrant workers the right to change employer means these circumstances have not been addressed. This contributes to the vulnerability of women to sexual exploitation.

The Government's failure to include measures that would offer undocumented workers routes to regularisation is hypocritical. In response to a question I raised last April the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, stated he would not consider an amnesty to regularise illegal workers. Last week a Minister promoted the introduction of a system to regularise undocumented workers in the United States. He espoused the benefits of such a scheme yet this Bill offers nothing to undocumented migrants here. This amounts to nothing short of hypocrisy.

This Bill has been promoted in some quarters as a green card system but this is not the case. A green card system offers pathways to citizenship and long-term residency but this Bill offers neither. A green card system offers the holder the ability to change from one employer to another, in order to better oneself, improve one's quality of life and avoid bullying, abuse and slave labour. A proper green card system is one we should examine rather than exacerbating the current, flawed, pro-employer system. This Bill does not contribute to a comprehensive, coherent policy of immigration based on human rights. It does not significantly reduce the possibility for exploitation of migrant workers.

See this speech in context