Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin Bay North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and commend this legislation. My colleague, Senator Sherlock, who sits on the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, informed me that quite a number of recommendations that came from the committee were not adopted by Government when it came to this Bill.

It makes us wonder why we have cross-party pre-legislative scrutiny. To be honest, committee rooms are where this Oireachtas works best. Often, when visitors come into the Gallery, they see the back-and-forth drama and theatre that goes on in the Chamber and hear the one-liners for clips on Facebook. All the real work happens in the committee rooms, where people generally try to work on a cross-party basis to improve legislation, which is the point of the exercise. Therefore, when a group of Deputies and Senators who are Oireachtas Members from different political parties collectively come together to make recommendations to Government on what they feel, having dispassionately, if you like, scrutinised legislation, one would hope that what they say would make its way into the Government's Bill considering that those who signed up to these recommendations include members of the Minister of State's party and other Government parties. I will shortly give a reminder of these recommendations.

Some of the flags raised about this Bill came from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI. I remind the Minister of State that the MRCI is a highly responsible NGO that works with those who have been described as the most vulnerable workers in our economy. It has had endless successes in these Houses for promoting, amending or suggesting legislation. It works with Government in order to improve things and it has been endlessly successful because of the manner in which it carries out its business. Therefore, when the MRCI flags something, it is because it is genuinely concerned. We know in our political lives that when we get comments on legislation, we must make sure the representation is on the money. When a representation comes from the MRCI, however, we must take it seriously.

As was said, migrant workers in this country are disproportionately exploited and poorly paid. They are disproportionately women and, as I said, on a lower pay scale. Therefore, when legislation like this comes across our desks to be debated in the Chamber and passed into law, we must keep them to the forefront our minds.

The committee's report on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill states:

The Committee recommends that workers with General Employment Permits are provided the same rights as those employed with Critical Skills Permits. A holder of a General Employment Permit should have the right to gain access to the labour market after two years instead of five, which would make it easier for them to challenge exploitation and substandard conditions.

The Committee recommends that holders of General Employment Permits should be given improved rights in relation to family reunion and the access of family members to the labour market, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Justice should address this matter in conjunction with this Bill.

It goes on to state that:

The Committee has not seen sufficient evidence to support the proposed introduction of a Seasonal Employment Permit, [which is a key issue] and it is also concerned about the lack of detail in the proposal. The Committee recommends that instead of introducing the Seasonal Employment Permit, the scope and terms of the General Employment Permit be adapted to meet the need for seasonal employment. The protections and provisions under the existing General Employment Permit scheme must not be diminished, and workers’ rights must not be undermined.

What has been said, and what my colleague, Senator Sherlock, told me is that these recommendations of the committee are effectively being ignored in this Bill. The "bias" within this Bill, if we can use that word, is with the employer and to allow flexibility for the employer and not to protect the employee. The Minister of State graciously said with an open heart and with generosity, as he always does, that he will work with Members on Committee Stage.

It is my experience, and others will agree with me, that it has been possible to work with the Minister of State on Committee Stage. However, it does not augur well when at this early stage of the passage of this Bill the recommendations put down by those who are tasked with doing pre-legislative scrutiny and trying to work best across parties to give the Minister of State advice on this have been ignored. It also does not augur well that agencies such as the MRCI are so worried about the balance of this Bill being about what is in the best interests of an employer and not in the best interests of protecting the most vulnerable of workers.

I suggest to the Minister of State that we are working with him and that we will be seeking amendments to this Bill in order to redress that balance. In all these conversations we tend to have, the balance of conversation in these Chambers seems to be about what is most important for the employer. Whenever we have a conversation about sick pay it always comes down to what will be best for the employer and the same goes for wage structures etc. When it comes to the energy crisis we are facing into this winter and what companies, businesses and small enterprises will go through, that struggle for the employer to keep the lights on is always mentioned but not enough of this discussion is focused on the potential for employees to lose their jobs or be on reduced wages. We need to rebalance that.

While taking the Minister of State's comments at face value and while we want to work with him on it, I ask him to reflect on the fact that those who in good faith made recommendations to him during pre-legislative scrutiny in the committee, from the Government benches and from the Opposition benches, particularly around the seasonal employment permit, were ignored or feel they were ignored. I ask him also to reflect on the fact that an agency such as the MRCI, which I have worked with closely and which I hold in huge regard, is also saying it is deeply concerned about what the Government is proposing. This is Second Stage of a Bill so anything can happen and we can make changes but the Labour Party asks that at this early stage in the passage of this Bill the Minister of State would reflect on the comments I have made.

See this speech in context