Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The Bill is about a principle. I hope this principle would be accepted across all sides of the House and particularly by all spokespersons. The principle is that all workers have an unequivocal right to be free and protected from exploitation. That right should not be conditional on one's status. It should be capable of being vindicated and should not be conditional on economic circumstances. If it is made conditional on one's status, it is not a labour right in the fullest sense. If it is made conditional on conditions in the economy, it is a camouflage.

I intend to speak in support of the Bill, in the full knowledge that the Government side and our side have tabled amendments to improve the legislation, which will happen. I regret that Deputy Varadkar has said he does not intend to support the Bill and suggested in a fit of hubris that in Government he would repeal the legislation, which would require his party having a majority because it would not have the support of my party.

Lest it be mentioned afterwards, I wish to state that one of my sons, who is a human rights graduate, works as an intern for the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. While my views are my own, my son has worked on providing documentation for a number of cases.

I have listened carefully to the contributions that have been made. This legislation is being introduced to protect labour rights. I have a position that is broader than this. I regularly ask the Government — I believe I have asked five times — when it proposes to ratify the United Nations Convention on Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which was passed by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1990 and which came into being as a legal instrument internationally on 1 July 2003. I am not sure whether any countries in the European Union have yet ratified the convention. The usual answer is that sufficient protections for migrant workers exist within domestic legislation. I disagree with that. It would be in everybody's interest to have the international instrument implemented.

I wish to say something that is also interesting to me — I have been around for long enough to be able to say it. One of the most successful appointments we made to the position of European Commissioner was that of the late President, Dr. Patrick Hillery. He led the case. It was one of the distinguished contributions he made but is insufficiently noted. He took the first steps at European Union level to establish rights for all workers and all migrants. I remember discussing it and contrasting his contribution in favour of workers with that of the undistinguished current occupant who is in favour of regulation with a light touch.

It is extraordinary that people speak about this legislation as if it is introduced as some form of discomfiture to employers or will somehow be of some disability to them. The opposite is the case. The majority of employers are good employers and have nothing to fear from good legislation. They have nothing to fear from all workers being equally protected. If one wants to go down that road, it is probably one of the great bulwarks of proper competitiveness to be dealing on a level playing field. I cannot understand people riding two horses in this regard.

People have referred to the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. I would be a fool if I did not recognise what is staring me in the face, which is the attempt by many people to use the present economic conditions to introduce a version of competitiveness that would result in a low-wage economy. That would be correctly opposed tooth and nail by anyone in favour of fair working conditions. We can have an opportunity on Committee State to review the Bill in some detail.

Before Christmas we got a presentation from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland that gave descriptions of people working more than 75 hours and being paid €2 an hour. In addition, even where decisions have been made in favour of the worker, it is often very difficult to get the money from the employer. It is not simply a case of Irish people exploiting migrant workers who come from outside Ireland or the European Union. Many of the migrants are facing oppression from the country from which they came. Some have paid people for their job — paid to be exploited. When they raise the issue with the person who has exploited them, sanctions are sometimes visited on their families, extended families and communities back in their country of origin. We need to realise that what we are doing should form part of an international pattern. A worker's status should not be a condition of recognising his or her fundamental right to be protected as a worker.

I do not agree that it is an unfair imposition on the employer to ask for documentation. I read the section to which speakers have referred. The employer has the right to be accompanied by a solicitor, member of the legal profession or a member of a professional organisation. Equally on the other side the worker has the right to be accompanied by a trade union official and so on. There are ways in which we can refine all of this. I listened with care and read the letters that I received regarding the Employment Permits Acts because it seems that if NERA is to be vindicated, it is hard to argue that the one agency should not work across the board. This is a matter to which we can return on Committee Stage.

I have a difficulty with some other parts of the legislation. I do not believe all 81 inspectors in NERA should be asked to fulfil functions that are aspects of the immigration authority's functions. The GNIB has a number of difficulties in cleaning up its operation. It should do what the GNIB is supposed to do. I am not throwing out any aside about the GNIB, but I believe there is total confusion on the specificity of what it seeks. For example, when it comes to proof of identity, what document is acceptable? It is sometimes suggested that a person should have a document of the status of a passport or equivalent, that they should leave the jurisdiction and renew one that is out of date, and that a utility bill or a driving licence is not acceptable. This is all nonsense and it is only a matter of time until the courts make a strong ruling on that matter.

At the moment there is a vigilante interpretation of that rule. I would like to see the labour inspectorate with statutory powers under the legislation. I am willing to take a benign view. We will see in the fullness of time how successful the legislation has been. The view that everything can be solved in the workplace is a benign version of what takes place. We must wait and see how it works out.

I wish to see certain omissions in the Bill addressed on Committee Stage. I refer to the specific measures that should fall on repeat offenders. I am sure when the full reports come from the inspectorates they will show a considerable amount of recidivism on the part of those who are offenders in this regard. With regard to the documentation sought, we should ask for more specificity on Committee Stage, particularly with regard to the information sought. I refer to dates, hours worked, specific rates, access to overtime and so forth. This would all help.

I welcome the introduction of legislation which is not aimed at making anything more difficult in economic terms or anything more discomfiting for employers but creates a framework of labour rights and compliance. It is a commitment in Towards 2016 which may need amendment but I am happy to support it.

See this speech in context