Dáil debates

Thursday, 18 October 2007

European Council Regulations: Motion

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

The Labour Party is happy to facilitate the passage of this proposal. I thank the Minister's officials for providing a briefing document for the Opposition spokespersons. However, why have we had such late notice on this proposal? The decision to approve the Council regulation was made at European level on 25 July last and I think the Minister owes us an explanation as to why at the last minute and with very short notice we have been told about it. Quite clearly the Dáil schedule of business did not include time for this matter. Why did it occur to somebody only at a late stage that this issue needed to be dealt with before 24 October? I notice also from the briefing document that the matter was brought to Cabinet just this week. Again, given that the Department knew about this since last July, why was it so late in being brought to Cabinet and subsequently being brought to this House? We are entitled to an explanation. Too often different proposals are sprung on us. Very little time is provided to examine them in any kind of detail. While nobody wants to hold up an important provision such as this, there is an issue as to whether we are doing business professionally and properly and the extent to which we can consider or examine the proposals put before us. It is unfair of the Government to put the Opposition in a position where there is inadequate time to consider the proposal.

Will the Minister provide a detailed explanation in his concluding remarks as to why it has taken over three months to bring this proposal to Cabinet and subsequently to the Dail?

The proposal is undoubtedly welcome. It ensures that third country nationals working in more than one EU state can combine social welfare contributions made in those states in order to claim social security benefits. That is a good thing. Up until the turn of the century, EU immigration policy was very much dominated by the security side of the issue. The social and welfare aspects of immigration policy, that is the rights and entitlements of legitimate workers from outside the EU, were much less developed. That mirrored a situation across the EU institutions whereby welfare type policies were very slow to develop. This strikes at the heart, purpose and legitimacy of the EU. If it is ever to serve its citizens, the EU must be much more than just a common market. The fact that we are opting into this proposal suggests we have still quite a long way to go in terms of welfare provision. It is welcome nonetheless and the Labour Party is happy to support this proposal.

There is a general need for more legal protections for immigrant workers. Obviously this reform will be useless to employees, if unscrupulous employers do not pay PRSI contributions for them. One suspects that third country nationals are more vulnerable than EU nationals in this regard. Last year only six fraud cases taken against employers resulted in a fine. It is very hard to know why that is the case. I am not sure if this reflects how small the problem is or how inactive the Department is, but clearly there must be rigorous enforcement of the law against errant employers if the proposal before us is to have any real meaning. On the basis of anecdotal evidence, there would seem to be a serious problem of non-nationals, whether from the EU or outside the EU, working in the black economy. That fuels much of the racism in Ireland because Irish workers see non-nationals working for low wages, driving down wages generally and undercutting them. Much of the evidence of this is anecdotal but there seems to be something to it.

It is extraordinary that last year there were only six cases in which fines were levied against employers who were not living up to their commitments. Until recently, the number of labour inspectors was so low, there was a sense of a free-for-all for employers. This opened the gates for widespread abuse with few attempts made by Government to provide an adequate inspectorate to ensure employers were adhering to the law. There is a long way to go and while it is welcome that people are coming in from the EU and elsewhere, because our economy depends on them, it is essential that the law is applied to employers and that they are obliged to keep to their commitments in terms of safeguards for their workers, regardless of whether they are Irish. I am not convinced that the current system ensures that happens.

I noticed from the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that there is a high rate of fraud and overpayment of child benefit among non-national recipients. The Minister may be aware that a survey conducted by his Department revealed a fraud rate of 14% among non-nationals whereas the Irish rate was 2.6%. This resulted in a combined liability of €31.6 million, a considerable sum. The Department has indicated that steps are being taken to address the problem but, clearly, given the proposal before us, it is important to eradicate these problems before we extend entitlement further. We certainly do not want to be seen as the soft touch of Europe. Fraud on this scale going undetected, that we only found out about because the Comptroller and Auditor General has been doing his job so well, leads to a lack of confidence in the system. The Minister is obliged to ensure the system is robust and that it cannot be defrauded. A fraud rate of 14% is worrying.

I agree with the comments of the previous speaker on the social insurance fund but wider issues arise. The actuarial review of the social insurance fund was published yesterday and it presents a worrying scenario in respect of the future of social insurance. In three years' time, our expenditure on social welfare will exceed contribution income. It goes from a minor discrepancy in 2011 to a considerable shortfall over the following 30 years. Those are serious findings for the future of social welfare provision in this country.

In light of that review and those projects, we must ask how and why Fianna Fáil gave an undertaking to voters before the election that it would reduce the level of PRSI contribution from 4% to 2%. Fianna Fáil knew at that point the problems the social insurance fund faced but it blatantly defrauded the electorate by promising to reduce the level of PRSI contributions. That is a serious matter on which we are entitled to a response from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Taoiseach.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.