Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment said in his Second Stage contribution that he would introduce a managed economic migration policy. The Bill certainly does not represent migration policy — in no sense can it be considered as such. It is a work permits Bill making some extra provisions, one or two of which I welcome, but it falls far short of being a comprehensive migration Bill providing for migrants entering Irish society and making a new life here.

When the Minister addressed the detail of the Bill, it was quite clear he was saying it is a revamped work permits policy. He said there are three pillars to the Bill, the first of which is the establishment for the first time in Ireland of a green card for occupations where there are skills shortages. He stated this will be for a restricted list of occupations in the annual salary range from €30,000 to €60,000 and a more extensive list of occupations in the annual salary range above €60,000. To refer to the system as a green card system is entirely misleading. The Irish experience of a green card system is that which operates in the United States from which tens of thousands of our people have benefited. Unfortunately, there are also tens of thousands of Irish on the streets of Boston, New York and Chicago, illegally, and that is a matter of concern to me. Those who received a green card could make a new life on the same basis as American citizens or any other residents in the United States. The Employment Permits Bill, however, does not make the same provision. It is unfair, incorrect and misleading to make claims for the Bill that do not stand up.

The first pillar of the Bill identified by the Minister, namely, the special provision for workers earning more than €60,000 a year and between €30,000 and €60,000, raises serious ethical issues about the philosophy behind this provision. Those migrants, particularly those in the €60,000 plus group, have unlimited freedom to come here and take up job opportunities that would command an annual salary at that level. The Minister said in his opening speech that high pay is a reasonable proxy for high skills. He also said this provision addresses a high level and strategic skills shortage. This is completely different from the experience in the United States.

As I prepared my remarks on the Bill and read its provisions and the Minister's comments, I recalled the poem, "The New Colossus", by Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a bronze plaque near the Statue of Liberty. The all-embracing welcome inherent in this poem is no longer the case in the United States. In the 1800s, however, the situation was different, as Irish people and the millions of others who migrated to America were grievously exploited. When the tragic events unfolded recently in New Orleans I found that in the 1800s thousands of Irish workers perished from disease and abuse while constructing the city. In the poem the voice of the statue says:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

In this provision, restricted to highly skilled people, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment effectively says to the poor countries outside Europe: "Keep your tired, your poor and your huddled masses but give us those who are highly qualified and skilled, your surgeons, specialist doctors, nurses, computer and engineering experts."

This poses an ethical problem because the Government has for some years had a consistent policy of poaching skilled people from caring and other professions in countries regarded as the Third World or bordering thereon. The poor in those countries desperately need these professionals. Now one of the richest countries in Europe is taking these skilled people from poorer countries and using them to enhance the wealth of its society without having paid for their education. This provision copperfastens the ethical problem.

The Bill proposes some welcome changes for those workers earning less than €30,000 a year. It gives them a greater degree of freedom because once the worker has a work permit, he or she will be able to change employments and will not be tied to one boss as at present. That is welcome as far as it goes but it does not go very far. Many questions arise because we have often pointed out the extent of migrant workers' dependency on the boss who brings them here under the current system.

In the new system it costs €1,000 for an employer to take on a migrant worker on a two-year contract. Under what conditions will that migrant worker be able to move to another employer? Knowing the nature of the capitalist I cannot see a boss forking out €1,000 only to see his or her employee moving to another employer after four weeks. The Minister says employers may not seek remuneration for that €1,000 but there is a contradiction in this. I hope I can be enlightened on how it is proposed to deal with this issue.

The overall policy by which the Government seeks to cream the best educated and most skilful people from poor countries and excludes other categories of working people from those societies is fundamentally unethical, unjust and discriminatory.

The other pillar of this Bill, according to the Minister, is to strengthen the rights and protection of migrant workers. I strongly endorse that aspiration but am not convinced the Bill provides for a comprehensive strengthening of rights and protection.

Major abuse is taking place in the economy in the employment of migrant labour and it has been growing apace. The proposal by Irish Ferries to replace 543 workers on trade union rates of pay and conditions with semi-bonded migrant labour on disgusting rates of pay and conditions shocked because it was so blatant. The company felt sufficiently emboldened to come out in front of the world and make this shocking proposal, but what it represents has been going on in society for a considerable number of years in many areas of employment, especially in the construction, meat and hospitality industries to name but three.

What we outlined in the institutionalised exploitation machine represented by Gama merely reflected what was going on, although not to the same degree of exploitation, in many other sectors of construction and in many other companies. Now, those who are most abused are not from outside the EU but are eastern European workers. They would not be on the Gama pay rates of €8 per hour. They could be getting €8 or €9 per hour but significantly less than the registered agreement rates in the construction industry. Construction bosses abuse vulnerable migrant labour to undercut Irish workers and other migrant workers who insist on a trade union rate, and they are also worsening conditions. If that trend is not stopped, a serious future is promised in relations between working people in this State against a background of a recession in the economy.

While growth rates are at present levels, the economy can absorb most of the labour offered along with workers in employment who feel they are undercut and under threat. However, in a recession when thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of jobs are cut, for example, in the construction industry, the basis is then laid for a vicious struggle over wage rates and jobs as ruthless employers seek to continue to employ exploited labour and employ more of it if there are higher unemployment levels in society rather than employ labour which insists on trade union rates of pay and conditions.

That is a real danger and the Government carries a heavy responsibility in the area. I am not convinced of the bona fides of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in any sense because it is part of the current EU neoliberal consensus which wants to squeeze more productivity out of workers, meaning greater exploitation of workers, and which sought the opportunity for employers to be able to employ cheaper labour than workers on the established trade union rates of pay.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment referred to the increase in the number of inspectors. I welcome that but the numbers should be much greater. The inspectors investigate what is brought to their attention, complaints made and so on. When we made public the Gama scandal, the work done by inspectors and the dedication they brought to it as public servants was impressive. However, a broader and more radical approach is now needed. I call for an investigation and research into targeted industries to see what levels of exploitation and abuse exist there.

There is a particular level of organised exploitation in the meat industry and factories and an undercutting of decent rates of pay and conditions. I would like to see former meat workers from those factories interviewed. They could be Irish or migrant workers who previously worked for trade union rates and refused to work for less. They now say they cannot find work in Irish meat factories at trade union rates because of the deliberate employment of migrant workers to undercut a decent rate of pay and decent conditions.

The trade unions have a critical role in all this. I was critical of elements of the trade union movement in allowing the Gama scandal to exist for four years. However, when a senior SIPTU official and the union took responsibility for the strike and the negotiations, directed by the workers' own Turkish strike committee, that became a crucial factor in winning important concessions. In following up on the Gama sites to ensure that all the workers are getting their proper rates and conditions, SIPTU is playing a very important role.

I now want the trade union movement to form an A-team to go into the economy and organise migrant workers everywhere so that exploited labour cannot be used in any job, and to follow the example of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in the earlier part of this century in America who did excellent work among migrant workers by bringing them in from the fringes where they were exploited and welding them together with the general workforce. That is what we need as an answer to the employers and those would ruthlessly exploit the vulnerable, particularly the migrant workers in our society.

See this speech in context