Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

With regard to amendment No 28, the purpose of providing access to the Irish labour market to the spouses, civil partners and dependants of critical skills employment permit holders and third country researchers under Council Directive No. 2005/71/EC is to differentiate Ireland from its competitors by enhancing its attractiveness as a destination for this cohort of highly skilled migrants. As such, this is a deliberate policy decision. It is not in my remit to define or determine matters relating to divorce or separation. That falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

I understand the Deputy's motivation in tabling such an amendment, in that such individuals should not be made victims of circumstances by virtue of a separation. However, that is precisely why I have introduced in this Bill the proposed reactivation employment permit, which facilitates such individuals whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own, such as a separation occurring during the lifetime of the permit. This scheme is very flexible, allowing an individual to work in almost every economic sector, the only salary threshold being the minimum wage. It will not be subject to the labour market needs test either. On that basis, given that I foresee that the vast majority of cases of separated spouses will be capable of being catered for in the new permits system where they meet the criteria applying, I am not accepting the Deputy's amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 29, the whole purpose of providing access to the Irish labour market for the spouses, civil partners and dependants of critical skills employment permit holders is to differentiate Ireland by enhancing its attractiveness as a destination for this cohort of highly skilled migrants. As the Deputy is aware, the spousal scheme is one of the most flexible schemes, allowing an individual to work in almost every economic sector, the only salary threshold being the minimum wage. Opening up the permits system to all spouses of permit holders under this scheme would go against the Government's stated economic policy and would lead to greatly increased numbers of permit holders entitled to work with no labour market needs test, potentially filling job vacancies that would otherwise go to Irish and EEA nationals currently on the live register.

In formulating employment permits policy, I must have regard to the potential for incentivising illegal foreign nationals to come to the State if measures are too liberal or rules too lenient. In my view, this could be one such measure. The Government's priority is to get Irish and EEA nationals filling job vacancies in all sectors of the economy as it recovers, not to open the Irish labour market to third country nationals who may not even be currently in the State. Therefore, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. There is nothing to stop the spouses, partners and dependants in question from applying for any permit type in their own right, provided they meet the criteria that apply.

With regard to amendment No. 30, Deputy Tóibín will be aware that it is my intention that all the conditions pertaining to the issue of a permit under the new reactivation scheme will be mandatory. The four mandatory conditions are designed to deter abuses of the proposed scheme and I believe they are proportional and reasonable given the advantages conferred by this permit type on the holder. If the Deputy's amendment were added to the list of four existing mandatory requirements, it would result in an additional mandatory provision that very few foreign nationals would be able to meet, that is, only foreign nationals who have entered into civil proceedings provided for in the new section 2B inserted into the Act of 2003, which would significantly narrow the field of potential applicants under this permit type. If the Deputy's intention in tabling the amendment is to allow a further permit type, those who have initiated legal proceedings under the new section 2B, I would need to emphasise again that my intention in the creation of this type of employment permit is to facilitate those foreign nationals who have fallen out of the employment permits system to re-enter employment in line with employment permits legislation. It is not a back door for illegal economic migrants who have not been or would not be, under current legislation, granted employment permits. Invariably, some future litigants under section 2B will be entitled to apply for the reactivation scheme without any such amending provision as suggested by the Deputy, while others would never and could never avail themselves of any permit, having always been illegal in the State.

There is another possible unintended consequence of the Deputy's amendment, namely a flood of civil proceedings being brought by litigants, solely or primarily to take advantage of the chance to convert their illegal status to legal status. Incentivising such litigation by the promise of a permit is certainly not what I intended by bringing forward the compensation provision. For all these reasons, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

See this speech in context