Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I welcome this debate which is long overdue. Like a number of Deputies who have already spoken, I deeply regret it took so long to publish this Bill which has been promised in every legislative programme going back as far as the spring of 2003. I am not sure why it took the Government so long to come up with this legislation which does little more than put the current regime on a statutory footing. Those of us who wish to see substantive changes that will provide real protection for migrant workers must, unfortunately, continue to wait because they are not clearly provided for in this legislation.

The present system is a two-tier system in which certain categories of migrant workers have considerably greater rights and freedoms than other categories. The Bill does nothing to change that. The right to change employer will still belong only to the workers in the top tier. Those in the bottom tier will still be bound to their employer. The Bill indicates the Minister's intention to retain categories of employment deemed ineligible for new work permits, which I regret. I know from the testimony of my constituents that this causes great difficulty for migrant workers as it makes it all but impossible for many of them to change jobs. I note that the Department's expert group on future skills needs and Forfás have recommended that the "ineligible" designation be abolished. I hope the Minister will give that proposal the serious consideration it deserves.

Under this legislation, only top-tier workers will have the right to avail of the new scheme which is being misleadingly referred to as a green card scheme. This is nothing like the green card system used in the United States and the Government and media should stop using this phraseology which is just confusing the public by giving them the sense of equivalence between the two when clearly no similarity exists. In the American system, "green card" is an informal term for the status which is officially called "permanent residence". It is granted only once and it is permanent. It does not need to be renewed after a few years, as the scheme on offer here will.

The lack of permanence is a real problem for migrant workers. Many have found it difficult to open bank accounts or take out mortgages because they could not prove to the bank's satisfaction that they would be here in a few years' time. There is also a psychological factor which should be taken into account. I have spoken to many immigrants in my constituency who have conveyed to me their sense of insecurity and instability arising from their temporary status. It is as if there is a voice in the back of their head constantly reminding them of the uncertainty of their future. Under this legislation that uncertainty will remain.

The American green card system has another fundamental difference in that it is not limited to workers in a certain category or above a certain income level, as this one is. It is doubtful that many of our emigrant relations, to whom reference was made earlier, could have qualified for a green card if the system mooted here had applied in the United States. The Minister stated in his opening remarks that the only eligible occupations will be those in a salary range above the average industrial wage and that most of the eligible occupations will involve salaries of twice the average industrial wage. This will exclude large numbers of migrant workers. The implication of such a policy is that workers earning below these levels are expendable and that their contribution to our economy and society is minimal. The truth is very different. We are reliant upon these workers, many of whom do jobs that few of us would be willing to do.

The Bill does not address one of the issues of greatest concern to migrant workers, namely, whether they will be allowed to have their spouses and children with them in the State. The Minister has indicated that the present situation will continue in which workers must meet a certain income threshold before they can bring their families here. This is discriminatory and degrading. Workers on lower incomes are just as entitled to the care and companionship of their families. Furthermore, the Migration Policy Institute has identified the absence of provision for family reunification as one of the key factors encouraging illegal immigration. This policy therefore is also short-sighted and in the long run will only cause problems, not solve them.

The Bill also fails to address the issue of employment rights for spouses of work permit holders. Again, the Minister has indicated that the present situation will continue in which only the spouses of top-tier employees may work without restriction. This policy is one of the reasons lower tier employees often cannot rise above the income threshold required to have their families with them. If their spouses were given the same rights as those of top-tier migrant workers, and there is no legitimate reason they should not be, this problem would arise much less often.

It is not just the spouses of work permit holders who suffer under the present regime. I am increasingly hearing of the problems being faced by the non-national spouses of Irish citizens due to restrictions on their employment while their residency application is pending. I have recently tabled a number of questions on the subject to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because I have heard so often of the difficulties it causes. At present an application to remain in the State based upon marriage to an Irish citizen takes 16 to 18 months to be approved. During this time the non-national spouse cannot work without a work permit. A period of 16 to 18 months is too long for two people to live on one income in our economy. While I understand the concerns about fraudulent marriages and while other countries quite obviously have the same concerns, nonetheless many of them, including the US and Britain, allow spouses to work while their applications are being adjudicated.

See this speech in context