Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate on this legislation which is long overdue. Originally it was to be published prior to Easter 2003 but it not published until June of this year. It was so long in gestation that I expected it to be a much more comprehensive and radical Bill. I am disappointed with it, particularly with the lack of integration and connectivity between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The issues that give rise to this Bill are deeply connected to the remit of both Departments. I refer to issues of work permits, naturalisation, citizenship, asylum and visas. The Bill does little or nothing to provide for integration between the two Departments in dealing these issues.

There are a number of aspects to the background to this Bill. One is the population change in recent years. There has been an increase in the population and a further increase is forecast. The Central Statistics Office indicated that during the period up to 2030 our population will grow from 4 million to 5.5 million. Births are outstripping deaths by approximately 31,000 on an annual basis. We have approximately 63,000 births and approximately 32,000 deaths. Therefore, there is a natural increase in the population annually. The make-up of the population is changing. Migrants have moved here and many Irish people have returned home in recent years. Asylum seekers and, more recently, migrants from the new EU member states, particularly eastern European countries, have moved here. We now have a workforce of approximately 2 million.

Another aspect, which is as important if not more so, to the background to this legislation and the area with which it deals is that a particular economic philosophy is underpinning the situation that is arising. I refer to the race to the bottom for wages and conditions and profit being the motive for everything. Other speakers would have called this neoliberalism but Irish people would probably know it much better as Thatcherism. It might be more appropriate if we called it rampant capitalism. What is emerging is being promoted not only here but at EU level. It is a race to bottom to minimise wages, undermine conditions and bring all employment and wages to the lowest common denominator. That is a phenomenon we have seen over recent years in this country and is one that is supported by various agencies both here and at EU level.

Last year we saw from where that was coming. The services directive introduced by the European Commission last year was the basis for that particular philosophy whereby the Commission wanted to ensure that companies, particularly those from eastern European countries, could operate in other European countries like Ireland and the more advanced countries on the basis of wages and conditions that existed in their own countries. That is fundamentally immoral and is a policy which, if continued with, can only lead to the undermining of wages, conditions and, ultimately, society in this and other European countries.

Unfortunately, our European Commissioner is at the heart of this policy and even in today's newspapers we see that he is at the forefront of that policy. The Irish Times today states:

Mr. McCreevy was summoned, with commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, to the parliament yesterday to explain comments he made during a recent visit to Sweden about a labour dispute, which has been referred to the European courts by the Swedish labour court.

What did Mr. McCreevy say?

[He] told the European Parliament that he should not have to justify remarks he made in relation a legal dispute between the Swedish government and a Latvian construction company over wage agreements.

The Irish Times regarded it as sufficiently important to have a leader article on it, the first few lines of which states:

Charlie McCreevy has been in the news around Europe because of his remarks on the EU's internal market and how it relates to labour market practices in Sweden. He has defended a Latvian building company's case in that it was not obliged to pay Swedish pay rates on a contract in the town of Vaxholm. The company was forced to withdraw after it was picketed by Swedish trade unions.

I say "well done" to those trade unionists.

That is the type of economic philosophy being handed down from Europe and, unfortunately, it is being bought into here. The reaction of IBEC to the situation at Irish Ferries, which wants to dismiss 543 Irish workers and replace them with what is effectively slave labour, is an indication of that philosophy. IBEC could not find the courage to oppose that development and to take its constituent company to task on it. Furthermore, a number of economic commentators, one in particular, said on a radio programme recently that the Irish Ferries situation is a good development. That was said by a well known economic commentator. Unfortunately, the Labour Court added to this situation when it recently agreed a deal that allowed Irish Ferries to introduce the same conditions on the MV Normandy and our Department funded redundancy payments on the back of that recommendation.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamentally flawed economic philosophy driving the situation behind the subjects we are discussing that can only lead to major difficulties in the future if it is not stopped. An element of that economic philosophy is privatisation. Irish Ferries is a good example as it was a State company that was privatised and is now being driven by its management to a position whereby it wants to disregard its Irish workers and employ eastern European labour at a fraction of the current wages and conditions of employment. I think I heard the Taoiseach say this morning that there was a difficulty in challenging this issue and particularly the matter of flags of convenience because of some constitutional problem. If there is a constitutional problem, the Government should put a referendum to the people to ensure it is dealt with.

This race to the bottom goes to the core of society and will do serious and irreparable damage to it if it is not dealt with. This issue is driven at EU and national levels by various agencies. It is a four-pronged attack where migrant workers within the State are abused and used to drive down wages and conditions of employment which in turn abuses them and their families, the services directive is used to allow eastern European countries to ply their trade in this and other European countries at rates of pay and conditions of employment that exist in those countries, and there are the issues of privatisation and flags of convenience.

No matter what legislation is introduced, even if it is Rolls Royce legislation, it is of little or no value if there is not proper enforcement and monitoring. Unfortunately that has been the case in the past and continues to be the case. For example, the labour inspectorate does a good job within the resources available and when allowed. I concur with Deputy Joe Higgins who said that when the problem at Gama was brought to their attention, they dealt with it in an efficient and upfront manner. However, the number of labour inspectors is small, being 31 at the last count, while a minimum of 100 are needed.

In recent years sufficient resources have not been made available to that inspectorate and, as a result, the inspectorate is not as active as it should be. In 2002 there were 8,323 inspections but in 2004 the number had fallen to 5,160, a reduction of more than 3,000 in a two-year period. In the same period there were 25 prosecutions in 2002 and only 14 in 2004. I ask the Minister to make available sufficient resources to the labour inspectorate to ensure it can do its job. Given our diverse workforce of 2 million people, a properly resourced labour inspectorate is essential to ensure workers, migrant or Irish, are not abused. The number of cases being brought to the Labour Court is such that it is becoming clogged.

There is another element relating to the labour inspectorate, the exploitation of workers and the benefit to companies over other genuine companies. In the Gama case there was the exploitation of the Turkish workers who worked long hours for small wages which were siphoned into accounts in European banks. Thankfully that issue has been dealt with. However, there are other knock-on effects in companies like Gama. I refer to the PRSI exemption which allows companies such as Gama, which has abused its workforce, to quote for work and undercut Irish and non-Irish employers for public service contracts. While Gama Construction was being investigated by the labour inspectorate, it contracted for the Castleblayney bypass and was successful, perhaps on the basis of the PRSI exemption which gives it a 2% to 3% advantage over other companies. That PRSI exemption is neither fair nor reasonable and should be addressed.

Employers refer to this exemption. At a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business the electrical contractors indicated that the labour inspectorate did not have sufficient resources to monitor its industry and they were fearful of being undercut by companies which were not paying the rate for the job and were, therefore, winning contracts on an unfair basis.

I wish to address a related issue, that is, access to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I refer specifically to the case of Stefan Dan Alexiuc, a Romanian constituent, who has been working in Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, for more than four years and has a work permit. He applied for a D visa for his wife to bring her here and be together as a family but was refused by the Department. He has appealed that refusal and has again been refused. The information from the Department is scant. He has been refused on financial and relationship grounds. The Department will not tell him or me what that means and it is almost impossible to get through to the Department. I understand it is available to deal with queries for two hours on two days per week. I ask the Minister to speak with her Cabinet colleague and ask that at least an Oireachtas Member inquiry line be made available to Members inquiring about cases.

Stefan Dan Alexiuc has been working for four years in Carrick-on-Suir and earns between €400 and €500 per week. In his letter to me he said:

I enclose a few of my last payslips. I also have a Bank of Ireland credit card with a €2,000 limit. The rent that I pay is €40 a week, so I would say that I can support financially both my wife and I. Actually, I am already supporting a child from a less developed country, Vietnam, thanks to Action Aid.

I come across cases such as this on a regular basis, as I am sure do other Members of the House. The Department should have a more open manner in dealing with them. Members of the Oireachtas in particular should have more open access to the Department.

I refer to the case of Jehosh Tunde Adekiyesi who is married and has been in Ireland and at work since 1998. He has bought a house here through a local authority loan. He recently received a deportation order. I ask the Minister to look into that case.

The background to this Bill and the economic philosophy driving the process is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed. While the Bill will be of some assistance to workers, particularly migrant workers, it is not the legislation I would like to have seen introduced.

See this speech in context