Dáil debates

Wednesday, 12 October 2005

Employment Permits Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

3:00 pm

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before lunch I was referring to the need for legislative change in this area, which would be welcome. The legislation will lead to a great improvement in working conditions for a number of people.

However, the sad fact is that we are now doing what happened to Irish people for a number of years. There are a small number of unscrupulous employers who should be exposed for what they are doing. Many migrants seeking a new life for themselves have been subjected to the most shameful exploitation by a minority of unscrupulous employers. We have seen television documentaries about employers who retain passports and treat migrants as little more than bonded labour. I have seen this happen in my locality in Monaghan. We have seen television programmes about people being used as sex slaves in Liverpool. If that is happening in Liverpool, there is a possibility it is also happening here. This type of activity must be rooted out of society.

Under the legislation, overseas recruitment agencies who charge employees exorbitant fees will have those fees reduced substantially. Many migrant workers are in fear and dread of such agencies because they feel they are still tied or bonded to them. The new legislation will mean that employees will no longer be tied to employers through a permits system. The decision to grant future work permits to employees rather than to employers is significant. In future, under the Bill, employers will still apply for the work permit on behalf of employees but, when issued, the permit will become the property of employees.

It will also set out basic rights and entitlements, of which employers will receive a copy. This is significant, because employers held work permits as a means of holding workers as slaves. Employers will be prevented from deducting recruitment expenses from the wages of workers or from retaining their personal documents. There have been examples of such exploitation whereby employers retain documents, provide workers with wages and housing and charge whatever rent they like, leaving workers with little or nothing.

Breaches of the new regulations will result in significant fines for employers. However, a fine of €1,000 in one case might be meaningless in another case. I trust that such penalties will be sufficiently severe to provide an adequate deterrent to the minority of ruthless employers.

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I welcome the debate but I have major concerns about the legislation. It is important to have an informed debate and to examine the details and technicalities of the Bill. I hope it is not a charter for exclusion and low pay, which only applies to people from disadvantaged and poor countries. The legislation presents an opportunity to protect workers who travel to Ireland. It is important that we as a society should ensure these workers are not exploited. I am concerned that sections of the legislation might lead to it being called the snobbery Bill because permits will only be issued to people who are highly skilled and well paid while people at the bottom of the employment heap will be ignored. These issues must be discussed given the concerns that have been expressed. When the Minister replies, I would like to him to clarify these issues.

The legislation codifies the current employment permits administrative procedures, including the work permits and working visa-work authorisation schemes. The Bill provides for the application, grant, renewal, and refusal of employment permits. It also provides that employment permits are granted to the employee and that the permit will state certain rights and entitlements of the worker concerned. The sections dealing with this must be clarified and strengthened. The Bill prohibits recruitment related deductions from remuneration and the retention by the employer of the employee's personal documents. The legislation will also empower the Minister to formulate parameters within which an active economic migration policy may be pursued. I have concerns about this because the Minister of the day will decide the parameters and they depend on the mood and whim of the Minister. What will happen if an anti-immigrant Minister or Government is in power, which we experienced previously?

During this debate on migrant workers, we should also address the issue of respect for these workers and our recent history on asylum seekers. According to the myth, Ireland has been flooded with asylum seekers. However, this group represents a relatively small portion of total inward migration. Half the new arrivals over the past ten years were returning emigrants. Approximately, 60,000 work permits issued last year compared with 8,000 asylum applications. We should bury the myth that asylum seekers are in receipt of social welfare payments to buy cars, mobile telephones and alcohol. They receive full bed and board while their applications are processed but other than that, they receive the same welfare payments as Irish citizens. This has been misrepresented in the broader debate.

I also refer to the "stealing our jobs" syndrome. Asylum seekers are barred from working while their cases are examined but many work on a voluntary basis on refugee projects in their own communities during that time. I have met many of them who were members of delegations to the Oireachtas representing voluntary and community groups. It is often claimed that asylum applications are bogus and applicants do not have a right to be in Ireland. I accept a number have been deemed ineligible under the Geneva Convention but most are forced to leave their homelands because of dire economic, political or social circumstances and this should be taken on board. Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, specify the conditions under which an application for employment permit may be made. Section 3 provides for the making of an application for an employment permit and outlines the categories of persons who may apply for an employment permit. Section 4 provides that employment permits are granted to the employee and requires applications to be accompanied by a fee prescribed by the Minister while section 5 specifies the information to be provided in an application by an employer.

I welcome the debate. People have an opportunity to be more welcoming towards immigrant workers. It must be ensured their rights are protected and we must remember our own history.

4:00 pm

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of my party. I concur with Deputy Finian McGrath's comments about asylum seekers. While this issue is not central to the legislation, I regret there was not greater co-operation between the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform to use the Bill to set conditions that would enable asylum seekers to work. One of the great wrongs in our society is the manner in which asylum seekers are treated. If one wished, one could not design a system more likely to depress and to oppress people than to accept them into the State as asylum seekers than this system that refuses them the ability to work while their applications are being decided. To be forced into a long-term period of unemployment is a deeply depressing experience and it is shameful for us, as a State, to operate that system. I regret that the legislation is not viewed in a wider context around the whole issue of immigration.

Similar to Deputy Howlin, and contrary to what people might expect, I would turn to America to examine how migratory work patterns can be addressed. During the last referendum on the issue of nationality and citizenship, particularly as it related to non-nationals whose children were born in the State, I was struck by the number of American Congressmen and Senators who visited Ireland to argue the case for following a proper republican line and vindicating the rights of immigrants. That sense of a republic has a strong effect. We should follow America's example because it, more than other country, has been successful in bringing migratory peoples together, including our ancestors. Perhaps, we could follow that model to address the issue, given the difficulties experienced in other countries. Generations can be passed over and it is possible to meet the grandchild of an immigrant who still has not assimilated and who does not feel part of the country. Our economy is probably the most open in the western world and it is undergoing rapid and radical change. It behoves this economy more than any other to get the issue of migrant work right.

However, under the American model capitalism untrained is rampant but I fear the Government's policies are still based on the simple basic analysis that as much economic growth as possible is good and that is our only measure of success as a country. That is a dangerous policy. While, gladly, foreign workers can be recruited to make up the shortfall in labour supply, proceeding full steam ahead on that basis is risky and it is not necessarily the best policy. Should we trip up due to an economic downturn, we would face a mighty fall. I would prefer if the State adopted a gradual, consistent and steady approach rather than implementing migration, employment and economic policies on the basis of always trying to achieve maximum economic growth. I am not sure that is a sensible economic policy in the long run. No one wants to return to what we had and while we should welcome and celebrate our recent success, we should be wary of setting policy goals on the basis of maximising GNP because that focus is too narrow.

The legislation proposes a two-tiered system through the provision of green cards and separate legislative protections for unskilled workers. I share Deputy Howlin's concerns but if we must be careful and restrict the numbers, different conditions apply. The green card system does not provide an attractive option. If the Minister is serious about attracting high skilled people we will go further and examine issues such as permanent residency and the treatment of the partners and families of the migrant workers. We need to make sure Ireland leads the way in this regard and provides proper checks and balances.

Does the Minister wish to make a point?

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should not interrupt the Deputy. What he is suggesting is exactly what we will do.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope so and I will be following this on Committee Stage to ensure that this is not a measure merely to suit our needs, particularly in respect of people on short-term stays. We must promote Ireland as an attractive location for people to come to.

I have serious concerns about the protection of migrant workers. The main concern is that we have not changed the fact that the employee is in a state of servitude, regardless of the checks implemented after that. If the employer holds the permit, he or she is in a position of remarkable power compared with someone who may not speak English as a first language, may not be well educated and may not have the confidence to deal with the legal or State support systems. This plays into the hand of the employer.

How will we deal with transitional issues where someone wishes to leave one employer for another? How long will this take and what are the rights of the worker in this situation? This must be teased out and improved on Committee Stage.

On Private Members' business last night we debated the matter of Irish Ferries. New workers from outside the EU must not be seen as a cheap option to undercut the Irish workforce. It is vital we provide access to the Human Rights Commission, the Labour Court and the full array of State facilities that provide support to migrant workers. If we do not do so, we will create a frightening culture, as suggested by Deputy Howlin, if there is an economic downturn and unemployment rises. Those without jobs will immediately blame Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats but the second instinct will be to blame migrant workers.

To date we have handled this matter reasonably well although canvassing door to door exposes the shocking extent of racism.

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It still exists.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are managing the huge influx. If we have a downturn and there is a sense that those workers are undercutting Irish workers, there will be a major problem. As well as basic justice motivating us, this potential problem behoves us to get this legislation right to ensure it is not cheap labour we create but prosperity for all, including those visiting and working in our country for whatever period.

A key section of the Bill we support ensures employers do not abuse employees in respect of restrictions on pay or accommodation. The real issue is how we enforce and police the employment rights we are setting out. Despite the provisions in this Bill there are serious concerns that we are not getting it right. That we have eight different bodies dealing with employment rights while workers operate in a transitory system and may not have good knowledge of the country is a remarkable deficiency. While there is a commitment to 31 additional inspectors, we still only have 16. This is a remarkable indictment of the seriousness of intent on this issue. That the number of inspections in 2004 was 33% less than the figure for 2003 runs contrary to the direction in which I wish to see us go.

There are other steps we could take. We could ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990. Ratifying this would demonstrate that as a small open economy that has benefitted greatly from the open world economy we are setting the highest standards and setting an example of the way to go.

My last point is that the Bill gives extensive powers to an incumbent Minister in respect of regulating migration policy. This depends on who is the Minister but I am not sure it is appropriate for one Minister to have such power in his or her hands.

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Deputy McDowell were the Minister.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are working closely on this.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister to consider how these decisions could be taken by someone other than the Minister.

Liz O'Donnell (Dublin South, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is interesting that this is one of two Bills from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment before the Dáil this week. These Bills closely reflect our changing society, specifically in respect of our working lives. The Parental Leave (Amendment) Bill responds to the pressure of today's working family and the ways in which we are trying to achieve a balance between work and life. This Employment Permits Bill is a direct response to our dynamic society, population and workforce.

This Government does not take current economic success for granted. Employment is central to our growth and sustaining employment is a central plank of this Government's policy. It follows that employment rights and work permits must be tailor-made to suit that policy. At times we must calibrate policy to fit in to our overall objective of sustaining our economy and prosperity.

People were appalled at claims that a Filipino was hired to work on a ship for just over €1 per hour and that money due to Turkish workers was paid into Dutch bank accounts without their knowledge. This Bill aims to protect all workers, particularly vulnerable migrant workers, many of whom live under the media radar in this country but who are essential for our sustained economic growth.

The most significant social change that has happened in the last eight to ten years is the virtual eradication of unemployment and its companion, mass emigration. Since 1997 the numbers working in Ireland has increased by more than 450,000 people to a total of almost 2 million. Unemployment has been reduced from 11% to 4.2%, which is a state of virtually full employment. Long-term unemployment has been reduced from 6% to 1.4%. The reality behind this is an enormous reduction in poverty. A recent ESRI report shows that the poverty rate in Ireland dropped from 17.45% in 1994 to 4.7% in 2001. A major factor driving this reduction was the growth in employment. We have turned from mass emigration in this country to net inward migration.

For centuries Ireland provided cheap labour and goods to Britain and even after independence was achieved, significant levels of emigration continued over decades. Irish people made their homes in the world's strongest economies, namely, Britain, the United States and other English speaking countries. Today we are one of the strongest economies in the world and, understandably, we have become a destination for immigrants to make homes and new lives among us. Moving from monocultural homogeneity to a multicultural context has been a challenge for Ireland. Our society is still adjusting and has moved from a fearful hesitancy towards newcomers to a welcome recognition of the benefits that accrue from these newcomers in terms of labour and cultural diversity.

There are many people in Ireland who fear the change but they fail to recognise the value and positive influence of cultural and racial change in Ireland. They are blind to the fact that we need migrant workers to sustain prosperity that is fuelling everything else in modern Ireland, including services, infrastructure and individual prosperity for our citizens.

The ESRI and others have pointed out the need for migrant labour to meet the workforce demand in our buoyant economy. The percentage of firms reporting vacancies increased during the first three months of 2005, reaching 10% in March. If we continue our pro-enterprise policies, strong economic growth will continue into the foreseeable future. Economic growth, as measured by real GDP, is forecast to grow by 5.7% in 2005 and by 5% in 2006. Much of that growth depends on the contribution of migrant workers. While EU nationals, nationals of the European economic area and Swiss nationals require no visa or permit to live and work in Ireland, others must seek such permission.

The Employment Permits Act 2003 provided for those procedures and the vast majority of non-EU and EEA migrant workers enter Ireland on those employment permits. Under that system it is the employer, not the would-be employee, who applies for the permit. As I recall, that was motivated by a desire to control the labour market and linked economic migration to labour force needs. That was an appropriate policy objective at the time. Sadly, widespread abuse of that system has been reported, including agencies providing workers with fake permits for non-existent jobs, workers forced into indentured labour and signing away future earnings. This may even happen before they have left their own country. Workers may receive less than the promised wage, less than the minimum wage, and have illegal deductions from salaries and so on. A large part of the problem, according to the Immigrant Council of Ireland, is that the employer effectively controls the employment permit. The worker is not free to sell his or her labour in the marketplace and may feel intimidated from making any complaints about such grievances and-or exploitation.

Apart from these reported abuses, the current restrictive and cautious immigration system reflects an earlier period when the country attracted very few migrants. We know the situation has changed utterly in recent years. While the system has been commended for being flexible, it does not do enough to protect workers and their families and has become extremely burdensome and overly bureaucratic for employers. Everything we do should be tested for its impact on enterprise and keeping jobs growing in the country. It is important that we are able to calibrate this work permit legislation and other related legislation to meet the needs of the day. The difficulty appears to be about who controls the permit and how best to protect the rights and entitlements of these migrant workers. Under this Bill, the employment permits will in future issue to the employee and the permit will state certain rights and entitlements of the worker concerned. The Bill bans the practice of deducting money related to recruitment from earnings and it will also prohibit employers retaining a worker's personal documents.

This Government wants to ensure effective monitoring of the working conditions of all persons with work visas. Enforcement will be a key aspect. The labour inspectorate of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible for monitoring employment conditions for all categories of workers in Ireland. We need more inspectors well resourced to pursue allegations of worker mistreatment and, when evidence of non-compliance is found action must be taken. In this regard I welcome the agreement to recruit an additional ten labour inspectors to the labour inspectorate, as well as a manger. Enforcement will be key. It will be the proof of this legislation if migrant workers feel protected by our domestic legislation. These measures should strengthen the capacity to ensure that workers are protected and will act as a preventative measure to prevent abuse as has happened in the past.

I note the Department has produced a series of information leaflets in nine languages about employment rights legislation in Ireland. That is to be welcomed. The languages covered are Chinese, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Brazilian, Portuguese, Romanian and Russian reflecting, interestingly, the real diversity of the modern workforce in Ireland. I assume those leaflets will be updated to take account of the new workers' protection provisions.

Debate on a Bill like this inevitably raises issues of global migration and the challenges posed to the rich countries of the north, like Ireland. With the enlargement of the European Union to the east, it was presumed at the time that most of our non-national labour force needs would be met from that source. That is not so. We still need non-EU migrants. Labour constraints persist in certain services sectors, for example, the catering and hospitality industries. In the wider sense the levels of poverty and lack of opportunity in Africa and other regions of the developing world make mass economic migration from these areas predictable, foreseeable and, in the light of our own experience, understandable.

Many people in developed countries, including Ireland, bemoan and at times even resent inward migration but I believe it is very much a part of the human condition. Perhaps the most compelling human instinct, apart from procreation, is the desire to make a better life for one's family when there is no opportunity at home. We know that from our own memory of mass migration over the generations.

When we discuss the welfare and rights of migrant workers in Ireland, it is easy to forget the families and communities those people have left behind, as so many of our own people have done over the years. As we put in place these protections for our migrant workers, we must also aim our foreign policy, in terms of joined up Government, towards working for a fairer world order, including the minimisation of population displacement and refugee flows from the developing world. That will be done by an enlightened foreign policy and development co-operation. Our current model of development co-operation is widely acclaimed in that it helps to build sustainable economic and human development in poor countries. We focus our programme on the poorest of the poor in the world. As we are aware, wars, chronic poverty, natural disasters, as we have seen recently, and lack of opportunity produce mass movements of people seeking refuge and economic opportunity in developed countries.

Political refugees have separate protection under our domestic legislation and internationally under the Geneva Convention. Sadly, in Ireland migrants and refugees have become interchangeable and blurred terms. Many refugees are economic migrants and because our asylum and economic migration systems were unresolved, the asylum system had become swamped and abused by those seeking a better life. Many people claiming asylum were economic migrants but had no way of coming here legally and sought the only access point, that is, through the refugee asylum system. That is not good for the asylum system because it clogs it up and makes it more difficult for genuine asylum seekers to receive the protection to which they are entitled under international law.

I welcome the fact that this Bill is before the House. A modern, progressive migration system is long overdue and must be separate from asylum in terms of process and policy. We have been playing catch-up on many fronts, both in terms of refugees and asylum, and on economic migration policy but it is now beginning to take shape and as it does, Members of this House and Ministers across all Departments must see around corners and put in place measures to integrate and make welcome the new arrivals. That will not happen by chance. It is a function of Government policy across all those Departments that have an impact on the people who arrive here and who have diverse and different needs to be serviced. We must start planning for the best way forward in terms of integration policy.

Because we are starting late compared with the rest of Europe, we can have the benefit of others' hindsight. We have a small population by any standard, although it has risen above 4 million for the first time since 1871. Our birth rate is above the EU average and our inward migration is steady and healthy, given our needs. This demographic change poses challenges here in housing, education and health. Across all Departments wise people should plan for the best outcomes, hopefully without the help of consultants. In terms of integration many, indeed most, will become Irish citizens. In regard to integration we should emulate the United States rather than the United Kingdom or other countries. These newcomers must in time feel proud to be Irish, as well as proud of their former countries. They should have an allegiance to Ireland if they are to become citizens here and live with us permanently. Integration need not mean absorption and abandonment of their culture but their allegiance must be to Ireland.

I would not like to see large ethnic groups living in a parallel world within Ireland. We have seen the dangers posed by fundamentalist Islam in the United Kingdom for example. We must be vigilant in this regard and avoid the ghettoisation of ethnic and religious groups here where grievance and a sense of disconnectedness from Ireland, the host country, and its institutions can foment.

Irish-Americans and other ethnic groups in the United States are first and foremost Americans. They swear allegiance to that great country yet never relinquish their ethnic identity and race memory of their homeland. I would like the new Irish here to cleave to and show allegiance to our nation, to enjoy the benefits of our new prosperity and opportunity. That happy outcome requires far-thinking and progressive ministerial planning now.

Photo of Paul Connaughton  SnrPaul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the Employment Permits Bill. I come to the debate wearing a second hat because the leader of Fine Gael asked me a couple of years ago to do whatever is humanly possible for the undocumented Irish immigrants in the United States, and to deal with the problems of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom.

It is strange that so many people forget where they came from. I do not recall my grandfather but I was often told that he was one of those who emigrated for six months every year from north Galway to the potato fields of Scotland. Those people worked in the worst conditions. Their sleeping quarters were next to the horse in the farmyard. That was their place in the social order. They were within half a mile of the boss's house and were treated no better, and maybe worse, than the farm animals. I never want to see anybody on Irish soil being treated like that for whatever reason.

Every sovereign state must have certain controls. No one can argue with that. It would be a bad Government that did not ensure the important checks and balances were in place. They exist in every country I know of, although in some they might not be strong enough.

The Minister has got a few elements of the Bill right. The idea of a quota system for people outside the European Union to match the vacancies we cannot fill internally is a good one. Few will fault the Minister on that idea, irrespective of where they come from. That is acceptable because the Minister is saying we will take in as many people from outside the EU as we need to ensure that our economy works to its maximum capability.

Some economists say that in the next few years our growth will be in the region of 4% or 5% of GDP. While I am not an economist I recall the trouble that arose when there was almost no increase in GDP. When that happened we exported workers. Far from exporting 65,000 people we are importing them. Everybody who spoke today mentioned the same figure. That is the number we need to keep our economy going. If we must do this and the economy cannot function any other way we must ensure we get the type of workers with the skills we need. If I am correct, that is what the Minister is trying to do in this Bill.

There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the Bill. I assume that on Committee Stage the Minister will explain in detail why he could not ensure that the work permit is the sole responsibility of the worker. I do not understand that because when I was on Capitol Hill this year, and on other occasions, I made a strong case for something equivalent to the Morrison visa for the 50,000 undocumented Irish in America — we do not want anything less for our people. During our debate on this matter last Thursday the Minister for Foreign Affairs said he will be in America next month and that anything less than a full recognition of our rights as Irish people in America is not suitable. I share that view. These people go out to work every day and in that way have an allegiance to the country in which they live. They could be the Minister's brothers and mine, our sons and daughters. Why would we offer something less to other people in our country? I cannot understand that decision.

The Minister must have some reason for ensuring that the permit goes to the employer. There are many immigrants in east Galway, most of them working in the hospitality sector and similar jobs. I have no doubt that the employers exploited those people under the old scheme. The situation is different now. At least the workers will receive copies of their permits. They will be in a better position under this Bill than they were last week.

The Minister, however, has stopped short of a right that every human being should have. It is necessary to place oneself in their shoes given where we come from. Why should any employer have an advantage over the workers? Would not all the other balances and checks provided for in this Bill work just as well if the permit went directly to the worker? Many people studying this Bill will wonder why the Minister did that.

From the point of view of human dignity, I cannot understand why the permit does not go to the person concerned. The Minister has invited these people into the State because we want them. They would not be here unless they were needed, met all the criteria in this Bill and were wanted by an employer. Why can they not be treated as ordinary workers? I do not understand why the Minister stopped short. I am sure the matter will arise a thousand times on Committee Stage and I hope the Minister will get a chance to address it.

There is another matter which is very important to us. Let us return to the situation in which many Irish people find themselves in America. There is no doubt that the American economy and way of life have much to recommend them. Many Irish people currently undocumented in the United States say that they could return to Ireland — a wonderful thing to hear — and get as good a job as they have in America. People ask me why I get hot under the collar about the problem of the undocumented in America, since they could come home. It is not at all simple because they emigrated voluntarily to become part of that economy. Many of them married American citizens. They like the system there, which to be honest is easy enough to do. There are many positive aspects to American living. Deputy O'Donnell and others referred to the allegiances people can have, first to their country of origin, the flag under which they were born, and then to their new country. Many of the undocumented Irish have told me that they could return home and be as well off financially but that they love America.

All of us in the Oireachtas will have to try to effect this. Let us hope that those who come to Ireland from all over the world will form the same view of this country as the Irish have of America and like being here. Let us hope that they will be treated as equals. That is why I do not understand why the Minister is trying to hand-trip them by selling them short regarding the permit. From the perspective of human dignity, it is theirs. It should be in their pocket and belong to no one else. However, the Minister is not allowing for that.

There is another matter that I feel is very important and which I hope works for the Minister. It is one thing to pilot legislation through this House. As we have seen in so many other aspects of Irish life, if one is not able to enforce legislation, one would almost be as well off without it. Greed is a terrible thing and human nature being what it is, if unscrupulous employers get the chance, they will certainly make money on anyone's back, not just immigrants. I am sure that the Minister will remember or have heard people talk of the fact that some of the hardest and meanest employers for whom Irish emigrants ever worked in Birmingham, London or Luton were themselves Irishmen who owned the companies in question. There is no reason to believe that one will not get employers in this country taking advantage of people who cannot speak the language and have almost no friends.

It must be as lonesome as anything in the world for a person from Moscow who knows no one and is unable to speak a word of English to walk down Grafton Street or, if he or she gets the chance to visit the country, to walk through the little village of Mountbellew in County Galway from where I come. Unless he or she has a few friends in tow, it must be the most lonesome place in the world. Many Irish people forget that.

I concur with much of what I have heard today. However, there is a fair degree of intolerance. People representing the city constituencies would know much more about this than I. For whatever reason, I see remarkable similarities between intolerance shown towards immigrants and that shown towards Travellers. Whomever else people wish to have living beside them, they do not want a Traveller or an immigrant. That is a serious matter.

I sincerely hope that however this develops over the years, we will ensure that we cut out the rogue employers. It goes without saying that anyone who comes here from outside the State will also have responsibilities. When in Rome, one does as the Romans, and in Ireland there are laws enacted by these Houses that we expect people to acknowledge. That is the other side of the equation.

I hope that this Bill represents a step in the right direction. Since they always went to an English-speaking country when they went abroad, the Irish did not have what I see as one of the greatest problems and disadvantages facing immigrants to this country. The proximity of the United Kingdom is one thing but one could not say that we were near the United States or Australia. Their great advantage was that the inhabitants spoke English. From an educational viewpoint, for an efficient workplace where migrants are employed, there should be great emphasis on teaching them the language. They must be given an opportunity to learn the fundamentals of English. Some people in this country would ask why we do not teach them Irish. We will not get into that. English is the lingua franca.

Many years ago as a young lad I was an educational officer with Macra na Feirme. It was just before 1970, a time when this country was getting ready for integration into the European Community. We were taken on a fact-finding trip to Brussels which we thought was miles away at the time. For young lads who had not left the country too often, it was a major experience. I remember saying to myself that it was a good job that we had someone with us who spoke a relevant foreign language or we would not have been able to get the train to go to the airport, so culturally poor were we. We were no different from most people at that time.

However, imagine those who have had no formal education, good, bad or indifferent, who have no friends and are simply floating through the world. That is essentially what some immigrants are doing. Against that, back-up services will have to be on a grand scale. Whatever can be done educationally, it is extremely important that they get the best chance.

Regarding the inspectorate, I have no idea whether the number to be employed by the Minister is enough. I am not able to adjudicate on that. However, I know that if there are employers who think that they will not be covered or that the inspectorate is so thinly spread that the chances of anyone ever calling or checking up on them are slim, they will act accordingly. There are some very fine employers in this country and I know workers from Russia, Poland and Nigeria who tell me that they are very well looked after. However, others tell me that they are given the meanest jobs and paid a pittance. They hardly know what they earn in a week. As far as I know from the few who have come to me, they have no salary or wage slip of any description. That is typical of what is taking place. However they operate, I hope the inspectors will be busy, particularly in the first two or three years after the new system is in place. If rogue employers come to understand they will be penalised swiftly, the message will go out and there will not be so many of these types of problems in future.

In comparison with colleagues in more urban constituencies, I have had a limited number of requests regarding migrant workers' rights from constituents in east Galway. In attempting to obtain information from the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have learned to appreciate the privilege only enjoyed by 166 people in this State, namely, the ability to table a parliamentary question. Without this facility, searches for this type of information would mean spending so much time on the telephone I would hardly be able to do anything else. As it is, one often has difficulty getting through to either Department on questions of this nature. I am one of a privileged 166 out of a total population of some 4 million. I can imagine the difficulties experienced by a person in Clonakilty, Ballinasloe or Dublin with poor or no English trying to ascertain information about their rights by telephoning one of the relevant Departments. None of us would endure such difficulty for long.

The system has been diabolical in the past, with people experiencing tremendous difficulty in getting through to Departments, but there has been some improvement in this regard. That progress must be expedited. Departmental employees dealing with such inquiries should consider whether an Irish person receiving similar treatment in Poland or Russia would be content. There are some in this country who have long since forgotten our own history of migration. The frontline staff who deal with inquiries from migrant workers should bear that in mind. The progress that has been made must continue.

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Devins.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is agreed.

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The significant degree of consensus on this Bill is welcome. Deputy Howlin summed it up earlier when he said it is a Bill more suited than most to Committee Stage because there are many fine points to consider. In general, it seems to be a Bill about which everybody has some positive comments to make. It has been a long time coming. As far back as five years ago, there was an awareness of the difficulties arising from the fact that permits were in the hands of employers rather than employees. That situation is now being rectified and we are working to empower workers and secure their rights.

I begin by noting that I often have reason to complain about the drafting of Bills. I have some small amount of legal training but I find it incredibly difficult to read some sections, in particular section 2 which replaces parts of section 2 of the 2003 Act. More effort could be made to simplify the manner in which legislative provisions are expressed.

In view of our long history of emigration, Bills such as this have a particular importance. It would be a pity if our modern laws ignored the sad history of migration from this country. In this context, it is important that we deal not merely with the nuts and bolts of migration policy but that we also safeguard the dignity of workers and ensure they feel welcome. Policy should be based on this welcoming imperative apart altogether from the specific rights set out in this Bill.

We have experienced net immigration from non-English speaking countries for the last several years and this is creating social changes. We cannot go into this blind and it is insufficient to deal only with the issue of permits. We must consider the economic and cultural impact of all this change. An important issue in this regard is the question of migrant workers being joined by their families.

We are in the fortunate position of being a "new country" in terms of net immigration. We can learn the lessons from other countries which have already experienced such migration, going back to the United States in the 19th century and western Europe in the last century. The system in place is quite clear and the proposed changes represent a vast improvement.

One area of caution relates to student permits. Thousands of people have been granted such permits which generously allow the holder to engage in 20 hours of paid work per week. It would be foolish not to acknowledge that many of these permit holders work far more than 20 hours per week and, as such, are important players in the economy. Future legislation must deal with the transition from student to work permits. At present, people with student permits must return home when their permit has expired and apply for a work permit. This is a bureaucratic solution to a practical problem and it should be regularised.

A famous meeting took place in Tampere in Finland in 1999 at which attempts were made to devise an EU-wide migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States security became the dominant theme of discussions on migration and, as a result, there was no progress for a long period. The need for skilled workers in the European economy is well recognised. Many commentators have spoken about the greying of the population in western Europe — although this is less apparent in Ireland — and the need to bring in workers from non-EEA countries so that we can continue to generate the wealth required to fund the social requirements of an older population.

We must encourage the migration of skilled workers for the maximum benefit of the economy. However, statistics indicate that 75% of work permit holders are engaged in unskilled occupations. This is a problem because we should be targeting highly skilled workers rather than simply catering to the areas of highest demand. It seems many of the permit holders working in unskilled areas are well educated or skilled in other areas. A pattern is emerging where people are coming to Ireland to work in unskilled jobs, whether in restaurants, as au pairs and so on, with a view to climbing the skills ladder subsequently and finding permanent work in an area in which they are trained. This is an issue that should be considered in the context of this Bill and in terms of the objectives of our immigration policy. The theory is that the work permit holder is supposed to return once the temporary need he or she has met no longer exists. In reality, however, many of them remain. Not only are they staying here but their families are coming to Ireland to reunify. There is some provision for that in the Bill and it is welcome.

One of the criticisms of the permanent migration policy, the green card system, is that a person is allowed to come into the country because the Department recognises the high demand area or an area that needs future skills as identified by Forfás. By its nature, the Department will be slow to react to new areas of high demand. A provision in the Bill allows the Department to review this issue every two years. I suggest there should be a continuous review of the high areas of demand and changes made accordingly.

In Israel low-skilled immigrant labourers are required to save a part of their earnings which is returned to them in bulk when they leave to create movement. That is not practical here. Once migrant labour is welcomed into the country one has to allow for the possibility that they may want to remain and that there will be reunification with their families. This is the reality on the ground, it is how Irish migration developed in America and England. People went out for specific jobs, their families followed and, sadly, whole parishes emptied in many cases.

In the Joint Committee on European Affairs recently we discussed human trafficking. At that meeting the old work permit system was criticised. Unfortunately, much human trafficking is occurring on the strength of properly issued work permits which were then retained under the previous system. The criticism I heard last week of the Bill, however, as it relates to human trafficking is not fair. Trafficking is a matter for the Garda and immigration officials.

SIPTU has indicated the need for more resources for labour inspectors to ensure rights are not being ignored. Section 21 provides for the appointment of authorised officers. Section 21(4) provides that an authorised officer may at all reasonable times enter any premises, place or vehicle while the various subsections grant extraordinary powers to those officers. A person can refuse to allow an authorised officer to enter his or her premises but will then face a warrant to allow for the searching of the premises. The Garda Síochána Bill requires that the ombudsman give notice to a Garda sergeant in charge before entering a station to carry out a search but there is no similar provision in this Bill. The Bill should provide for a notice period so the investigation may take place in a proper and less dramatic fashion.

5:00 pm

Photo of Jimmy DevinsJimmy Devins (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill is important and timely because of the huge changes that have occurred in Irish society during the past ten to 15 years. Ireland has moved from being a country which has experienced years of emigration to being a country which now has net immigration. Most who had to emigrate had no choice, it was down to hard economic facts. To survive people had to leave Ireland.

It is amazing how easily and how quickly that harsh economic fact can be forgotten. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s a large proportion of young people of Ireland had no choice but to leave and work abroad. Counties Sligo and Leitrim were hit as badly as any others. We suffered not only from emigration but many of our young people moved to Dublin and the east coast.

Today, however, we have the reverse. As Ireland continues to develop and prosper we have the relatively new phenomenon of immigration. Not only is there net immigration but the numbers coming to Ireland are quite staggering. In the past five years more than 110,000 non-European Economic Area nationals started employment in the State. Non-European Economic Area nationals are those from outside the EU and a few other European countries such as Norway and Switzerland. Last night I noticed quite a number of Swiss nationals in Dublin. I was glad to see them here as tourists but I take this opportunity to wish the Irish team every luck this evening.

The changes in our workforce have resulted in huge challenges in how we operate our employment legislation, hence the need for this Bill. It is important that our policy is consistent and fair to the migrant workers who come to Ireland and to Irish workers and indigenous firms. The right balance is needed and this legislation goes a long way towards achieving that.

Migrant workers can be in a particularly vulnerable position as alluded to by previous speakers. It is important that their experience of working in Ireland is mutually beneficial. Nobody, employer or fellow employee, should be allowed exploit that vulnerability. If it were not for the skills that migrant workers bring to this country the economic success that we have experienced during the past eight to ten years would not have occurred.

The basic philosophy underlying any market policy must be to identify labour and skills shortages and to match those shortages with people who are suitably qualified. This is not a static situation, it is constantly changing as the needs of the country evolve. One day the shortage may be in the construction sector while another day it may be in the services sector. Our legislation must have the ability to respond rapidly and fairly to any changes required.

All the economic indicators show there will continue to be expansion and growth in the economy, hence the number of workers required will continue to increase. The challenge facing us is to ensure that workers with the right skills are available for the appropriate jobs. I welcome the research that has been carried out by the expert group for future skills needs and Forfás which will be finalised shortly. This work is vital in identifying where shortages occur or will occur in the economy and will suggest how those shortages might be tackled and matched by appropriately qualified workers.

Protection of the migrant worker is important. I welcome the fact that employers will be prohibited from deducting any costs from the pay of any worker that may be incurred in recruiting that worker. It also prohibits the retention of personal documents such as passports by the employer.

One of the major intentions of the Bill is to introduce a green card system for highly skilled migrant workers. In my constituency of Sligo-Leitrim, there are many highly skilled workers from outside the EEA working in the health service. I welcome the Bill as it is based on skills which will benefit the economy and also allow new immigrants an opportunity to use their skills to the best of their ability.

However, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to some difficulties which exist for migrant workers. Perhaps with some co-operation between his Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform these difficulties might be overcome. Many of the skilled workers who come to Ireland work in the health service. It has been said that were it not for the non-EU doctors, nurses and paramedics much of our health service would stop functioning. This is particularly true for the general hospitals all over the country that are not directly associated with universities or teaching hospitals. These doctors and nurses are in their late 20s, 30s, or early 40s and frequently have families. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for family members to come and visit or stay in the case of immediate family members.

Recently I came across a case of a highly specialised nurse in Sligo General Hospital who was having great difficulty in getting her husband and young daughter into Ireland. The worry of the sister in charge of the unit in which the nurse worked was that this nurse, with specialised skills, would be enticed to work across the water in the United Kingdom where her immediate family would be accommodated and thereby her skills would be lost to our health service. I realise this particular problem lies more in the realm of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform where, I am glad to say, it was eventually resolved. However, better co-operation between Departments would have prevented all the difficulties. In the case of these highly skilled workers for whom we are canvassing abroad, there should be some built-in mechanism to anticipate and resolve these difficulties.

The Bill, when enacted, will allow the Minister to introduce regulations on the qualification criteria by which people will be granted permits. For example, the use of a salary cut-off point has been mentioned for highly skilled workers. I am not too sure that this would be the best criterion on which to operate. It may be that skills or educational qualifications would be a fairer method for determining entitlement to a work permit. Perhaps the Minister might consider that idea in more detail on Committee Stage.

I am aware of the comments of the Immigration Council of Ireland concerning this Bill, which were generally in favour of it. I hope a fuller discussion and teasing out of some of the points to which I have alluded will be possible on Committee Stage, resulting in worthwhile legislation. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this measure before us and I commend the Bill to the House.

Photo of Seymour CrawfordSeymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this important Bill. The legislation covers a wide spectrum in providing for the application, grant, renewal, refusal and revocation of employment permits. We should debate how the system has worked in the past and how it should operate in future. As the Minister said in his speech, we have a unique situation in that we are now dealing with immigration rather than emigration. I am old enough to remember large-scale emigration when our people left this island and were allowed to work in the UK, the USA, Australia and elsewhere.

We are now talking about immigration rather than mass emigration, which represents a massive change. We can be proud of where we have come from, but we must ensure our regulations and laws are such that everyone, whether Irish-born or not, receives fair treatment. The lack of fair treatment is causing many problems in the work force, which often spill over into social life. We see that happening all too often and sometimes ending in tragedy. We need to ensure people understand each other and are given the same treatment.

Many Irish workers feel their jobs are being undermined because migrant workers have been exploited. There is no doubt about it and we know that from past history. Many Irish workers have made genuine complaints to me and to other public representatives that they are no longer wanted, but their anxieties are not recognised. In larger manufacturing plants the workforce is changing dramatically. I have heard of situations where a few migrant workers were engaged initially, but later they constituted half or three quarters of the workforce. Irish workers feel that some of these workers were employed at lower wage levels, thus putting their own jobs at risk. That is why it is so important to treat everyone equally.

The technicalities of the Bill have been dealt with already by our party's spokespersons and they will be dealt with in further detail in the remaining stages. I wish to refer to a few details that have direct links to the immigration issue. For some years, quite a number of asylum seekers have been looked after in locations such as St. Patrick's College, Monaghan and at Mosney in County Meath. The problem is that they are not allowed to work, which in turn causes resentment. That is part of the background to the misplaced arguments against migrant workers who become confused in the public mind with asylum seekers who have been here for so long.

Many hard-pressed mothers often come into my constituency office to complain that they cannot get a taxi service to bring their children to hospital from rural areas where there is no public transport, yet foreigners — as they class them — can get taxis to Dublin or elsewhere under the asylum procedures. Many such people who are seeking Irish citizenship are only too willing to work if given a chance to do so. They should be given work permits for one, two or three months. Some asylum seekers who have been staying in St. Patrick's College in Monaghan for a long period are not allowed to wash their own dishes, which is demoralising for them and a bad example to their families.

There should be a once-off amnesty for these people. We have good restrictions on others coming in, so we could allow such an amnesty once. It would not be unrealistic to do so at this time when the Government and Opposition parties are seeking an amnesty or special derogation for Irish people who are living and working in the United States without the necessary permits. Since the new regulations were introduced in the United States as a result of the events on 11 September 2001, many Irish people have found themselves in an impossible situation. They cannot return home for weddings, funerals or other occasions. They even find it difficult to obtain driving licences. Since we all agree that it is important to get this situation sorted out for Irish citizens in America, I find it difficult to accept that we cannot do the same for others, many of whom cannot return to their own homes in safety. I heard Deputy O'Donnell talking about such situations in Africa and elsewhere, including the desperate trauma that people suffer. I also heard Deputy Connaughton describing how his forefathers had emigrated to Scotland.

I have had to deal with asylum seekers in Castleblayney and elsewhere but I find it difficult to explain to them why they have been left waiting for three years. Although they are willing and able to work, even in a voluntary capacity, they are not allowed to obtain work permits. If they were earning money and paying their way, they would not be regarded by others as leeches on the community. It would certainly prevent some of the misgivings and misunderstandings that currently exist.

If our economy continues to grow at its current level, it is clear we will need continued immigration but we must ensure the system works. At times, I have questioned the regulations and controls concerning what workers can come here. For instance, in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, where we have no means of transport other than by road, lorry drivers are often in great demand but not easily found. On a number of occasions, I raised the issue of haulage companies with the Minister's predecessor. Such companies had an opportunity to hire South African drivers but were advised that they could not do so since drivers are available from eastern Europe. It is important to point out that South African drivers are used to driving on the left-hand side of the road and also speak English, which is important for Irish and UK deliveries. This is just one area where there should be more flexibility, thus leading to less road accidents.

I welcome the Bill's provision giving employees more freedom to work where they wish. We can never allow a situation to recur such as occurred with Gama Construction or more recently with Irish Ferries. In recent days Gama Construction signed a major roads contract in my constituency. It is vital that we not only introduce regulations to monitor how it and others treat their employees but also that we have the inspectors to enforce the law. It is not sufficient to promise to increase the number of inspectors. It is important that they have the finance and wherewithal to operate. I am not being political but factual. In 1989 the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy, introduced laws regarding meat and bonemeal, which was the right thing to do at the time. However, unfortunately no inspectorate was ever appointed until we found ourselves with BSE in 1996. It was only then, seven years later, that inspectors were appointed and paid to do a job that could have saved the country a considerable amount of money. In light of those issues I raise this matter and I do not do so in a party political way. It is important that we have the personnel to control the laws we are about to pass.

It is public knowledge how Gama Construction used ingenious schemes to pay unfortunate workers a pittance while they built the country's infrastructure. Not one person has been punished for this disgraceful treatment of workers. What additional resources will be made available to the labour inspectorate and other bodies that will enforce the legislation? How does the Department intend to communicate these new rights to migrant workers? I heard previous speakers refer to the language issue. Many of these people do not have a good grasp of the English language and may not be fully aware of their rights. On the other hand I am told by employers that many of them have a good grasp of the language and certainly know their entitlements. Who will co-operate with the foreign embassies to ensure these rights are translated into meaningful improvements for migrant workers upon entry to the country? It is important for Irish workers that migrant workers are not exploited and that they are all seen to be on the same level. If we are entitled to bring in workers and pay them, we must ensure that the house with which they are provided is not used as a means to halve their wages. All those issues must be addressed, which can only happen if we have an appropriate labour inspectorate.

If we are to see migrant workers as part of the Irish culture in the future, as Deputy Devins said, we must address the issue of the family. While I appreciate that it is not the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, it is a matter for the Government. If people are good enough to come here and fill vital vacancies as nurses, doctors or in other areas, they should have the right to bring their spouses and rear their families here. In our history those who emigrated to work in the US or the UK had a legal right to bring their families.

I will mention one case that seems curious. Of eight workers in one company, six successfully applied to have their wives join them and in some cases their children. However, two workers failed. Those two worked in the same company on the same wages and come from the same country. It is very hard to understand how such a thing can happen. In another case a young man had been working for three years in a relatively good job with a house supplied. He failed in his application to get his wife to join him even though his friend, whose job was not so good, was facilitated. If we are to respect the families of migrant workers we must consider this issue seriously. In one case a migrant worker was refused permission to bring his wife and children here for a short holiday in spite of being prepared to give sureties.

We should encourage migrant workers to become involved in the community, church and sporting activities so that they can become part of the Irish structure. If we fail to do so we will have serious problems of social exclusion etc. Some families coming here may need special education etc. We need to work together not just in employment but in education, health, justice and so on.

I noted some points of the Minister's speech with interest. As a farmer dealing with some of the bureaucracy that we had been promised would be eliminated, I could not help highlighting one comment the Minister made about job offers. He stated: "Our system will be simple and transparent, rather than complex and bureaucratic." I hope this is the case not just for the Minister's sake but for everybody's. Small companies that find it hard to develop and stay in business have the greatest difficulty in getting migrant workers through the system. The bigger companies that can afford to utilise intermediaries can get the number of workers they need without any problem. This was the case even at a time when migrant workers were not supposed to be permitted here. While this does not reflect personally on the Minister, I have found it difficult to contact the Department. If it is difficult for me to get through, how much more difficult must it be for someone with poor English. These matters need to be addressed and clarified.

In general I welcome the Bill. It is vital that migrant workers are permitted to enter the country. I challenge the way asylum seekers are being treated. I raise the matter in a genuine manner and am not trying to stir matters politically. The issue could be addressed very quickly and eliminated once and for all. If the backlog could be addressed, new asylum seekers could be dealt with quickly. In the case of my friend in Castleblaney, she has been there for three years with her children. They had settled into school and one of them was about to do examinations. They were suddenly deported. For a country that claims to be Christian based, that is not a compassionate way to operate. While I do not suggest that we should have an open-door policy, we should find a way to deal with this issue once and for all. The permits system exists for those wanting to enter the country. The small number of permits that would clear that issue would allow us to get on with other business.

In general I agree with the Bill and I hope any matters that need to be amended will be addressed in a constructive way on Committee Stage.

John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. As a trade unionist for most of my adult life and as a person who had to emigrate in the past, I may be able to make a few worthwhile comments and possibly put a slightly different perspective on some of the issues raised.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation because it is important and timely for the individuals involved. If anything it is overdue. Some people will question the need for the legislation and there have already been suggestions that we have adequate worker protection and labour legislation in place. It has even been suggested to me that we are becoming a nanny state, over-regulated in different aspects of our lives. I disagree with that generalisation. Deputy Joe Higgins highlighted one relevant case and more recently the attempt by Irish Ferries to drive a coach and four not alone through worker protection but through wage agreements and redundancy laws clearly indicates the need for this type of legislation.

If Irish Ferries thinks that Irish workers are unsuitable for its operation, it may be time for the travelling Irish public to consider if that company is suitable for its purposes, namely travel. Boycotts have worked in the past. I would not use this House to suggest to anyone that a boycott be put in place but anyone who goes to the lengths to which Irish Ferries has gone, to try to break every agreement that has ever been made, should be severely dealt with.

From my involvement in many issues regarding redundancy, the rule has always been that it is the job which must be redundant. That rule is important, and sacrosanct. If it is not upheld, there is nothing to stop any employer from dispensing with the services of any employee and replacing him or her with a cheaper or younger substitute. We contest such actions vigorously because all our laws and protections in the area have been based on a certain set of beliefs, one of which involves the redundancy issue.

Greed will always be prevalent in industry and business. We regularly experience and read about cases of tax fraud, failure to pay pension contributions, to comply with health and safety regulations and so on. People who indulge in such practices will certainly exploit any opportunity they see, particularly if it involves potentially cheaper labour, be it involving non-nationals, people tied to single employer work permits and so on.

It is important therefore that we step in. As legislators it is our responsibility to ensure we have adequate laws in place and that we close any loopholes which are highlighted. No matter how carefully legislation is drafted, there will always be people to exploit sections of it. We need to be able to move speedily to cut them off. Bad examples such as seen at Irish Ferries and the Gama Construction company will give us a bad name and create great friction between the trade unions representing workers at all levels, the Government and State, and employers.

Section 22 in particular of this Bill affords protection to migrant workers. Its prohibition on deducting recruitment-related costs from the employees' wages and also retaining employees' personal documents by the employer is long overdue. It is many years since the truck Acts and other legislation prohibited this type of exploitation of workers by employers. Because of our history we should be more conscious than most of how people can be exploited. We had bonded or tithed workers and so on. Many of the current situations are close to slavery. If someone is tied to an employer, regardless of conditions that is totally unacceptable. That happened with work permits. People were afraid to complain and had no outlet. They must have a legal basis for complaints and it is timely that we move in this area.

Unfortunately, because of the current set-up, many migrants have found themselves in the Irish worker situation that obtained in the bad old days. Retention of work and other documents, the refusal to pay properly-agreed wage rates, the exploitation of workers, failure to supply details of wages earned and excessive charges for accommodation and food have been par for the course in some cases, though not in all. These abuses occurred in big companies as well as small, and it was not only individuals who were exploited.

Some colleagues in both Houses of the Oireachtas may not fully understand how easy it is for an employer to exploit workers travelling from foreign countries. They may not appreciate the difficulties such workers face when arriving in a strange country, especially if there is a language barrier. Those of us who had to leave and go to work abroad in the past will understand that difficulty and appreciate the conditions hidden in contracts which can make it very difficult to leave one company or one job, particularly on construction sites and so on. We can also see the excessive charges made for accommodation and are aware of how people can be exploited in that regard, when one finds those charges are tied into one's work contract.

Most of us will understand the resentment that can arise from the feeling that someone is coming from outside to take local jobs, and that feeling can be experienced in any country, but especially in one of high unemployment. Deputy Crawford referred to it and said many workers felt their jobs were being undermined. That sentiment may not be too obvious when everything is going well and a feeling of security exists, but when matters deteriorate, or there is a suggestion of such deterioration, people become concerned and usually take it out on the outsiders, as they see them and describe them.

In that context it is important that we give a fair and accurate account of how we are doing in terms of employment, and with regard to the forecasts for the economy. Failure to do so could affect the people covered under this legislation by creating a totally false impression of how we are doing in terms of employment. Deputy Crawford referred to this issue. I am glad he is present. The Fine Gael spokesman responsible for this portfolio leaves a lot to be desired in that regard. Deputy Crawford is forecasting a very bright future, saying we will need immigrants and must have them, while the Fine Gael spokesman may have been trying to sow the seeds of disharmony with false forecasts. That could make people unduly concerned and create a great deal of unnecessary worry, and reaction against outsiders working in this country.

Lest anyone accuse me of providing false information on the issues, I will give a couple of examples of forecasts where the Fine Gael spokesman took a sort of "Crocodile Dundee" approach to the facts. On 15 July 2003, Deputy Hogan said it was reasonable to assume that in that year we would see negative growth in the Irish economy. In fact, the economy continued to grow in 2003, with GNP up 2.8% and GDP up by 3.7%. I asked for these figures in order to have a correct record because this is an important aspect of our debate.

In talking up a jobs crisis on 4 July 2003, Deputy Hogan said:

By the end of this year, enough people will become unemployed to fill Croke Park to two and a half times its capacity. We are now heading for over 200,000 unemployed by the end of this year.

In fact, unemployment figures rose to just over 170,000 at the end of 2003. It fell in 2004 and according to the most recent statistics, that is, for the year to March 2005, the economy created a new job every seven and a half minutes.

The next quotation is a real beauty. On 4 September 2003, the Deputy stated: "Unemployment has reverted to pre-Celtic tiger levels." In fact, unemployment in September 2003 was at 4.4%, significantly less than half the 10.7% rate inherited from the rainbow Government in 1997. On 10 February 2004, the Deputy said that Youghal's narrow loss of 2,000 new jobs to Slovakia and the loss of 50 existing jobs in Offaly to Latvia and the Far East — he picked his targets well — marked a new low for the Irish economy. In fact, unemployment in the first quarter of 2004 was 4.5% and in the first quarter of 2005 it was 4.2%. More than 70,000 jobs were created in the year after Deputy Hogan made his prediction.

On 17 February 2004, he said any talk of an economic recovery is dampened by FÁS's prediction that employment will grow at half the rate predicted by the Government in the budget. This will result in "the lowest rate of job creation in 12 years". However, in the year after the Deputy made his comment, the number of persons in employment grew by 72,400 to reach 1,908,300 in the first quarter of 2005. This was the highest level of annual growth, at 3.9%, recorded since the fourth quarter of 2000. On 6 February 2004, he said "the level of notified redundancies for 2004 will reach new heights". In fact, notified redundancies fell by 16% in 2004. On 15 September that year he said the Government "does not care that jobs are being lost". In the year after he made that comment, however, the number of persons in employment grew by 93,000 to reach 1,929,200 in the second quarter of 2005. It is the highest annual growth rate, at 5%, recorded since the second quarter of 2000.

It is important to mention these comments not just for point scoring but because Irish workers, as Deputy Crawford said, feel their jobs are being undermined. They feel that way because of scaremongering. The record is available to be checked but this type of talk creates a difficulty for people who come to this country to work. It creates a sense of fear among people who are in employment and are concerned. We cannot allow it to continue. The false forecasts must be taken seriously. They also create a false picture of the economy. This country is doing exceptionally well by any measurement. The OECD and all economic groups will agree with that. Talking down the economy is also happening in other areas. These spokespeople should not be allowed to run with such false propaganda. It is not good for people in employment or for the country.

I agree with the point made by Deputies Devins and Crawford that families joining workers is an area of concern, particularly with regard to health. This country is at least as difficult, if not more so, than the USA to deal with in regard to getting people into this country, getting them a visa and allowing them to join their families. However, I believe the experience of migrant workers has been positive, with the possible exceptions mentioned earlier and some other individual cases involving housekeepers and similar workers that have been highlighted. The vast majority of cases have worked successfully and we should encourage that.

The USA found that the best way of dealing with illegal employment, as it was described, was to go after the employer, not the employee. The fact that future abuses of section 22 in this Bill could result in fines of up to €50,000 or up to five years in jail should help to ensure that such abuses are stopped.

There is no need for Irish workers to resent immigrants arriving here to work, as long as proper controls and systems are in place. That is the objective of this Bill. It is the false information and the stirring of the pot, as it were, as well as the lack of proper legislation and conditions that cause problems for people. The country is doing well but I am mindful of an old saying of my late mother's, "Do we think we will never again see a poor day?" We need to be ollamh and properly prepared to control the situation. This and the last Governments have created a positive situation. There are exceptional levels of growth. However, none of that happened by accident and false attempts to talk it down will not change that fact. It is on the record.

With regard to the use of the term "green cards" in the Bill, perhaps it is not the best name as it could be confused with the American system. I do not know what they have in common but it might be better to use a different name. There is a need for this initiative but it must be monitored. Deputy Devins dealt well with that issue. As a medical practitioner, he is aware of the situations that arise. Deputy Crawford pointed out how it could be misused for certain people. Nevertheless, we should have a range of initiatives and opportunities for people who need employment and who need to send money home to their families and into their home economies. I have been in that situation. I have experienced having to work in countries where one feels that others think one is taking their job. I can empathise with immigrants to this country.

I am also aware of the difficulties. Trade unions will protect their members but unless the trade unions seek them out and encourage them to become members immigrants will feel isolated and at a disadvantage, particularly if there is a language barrier. We should remember that many Irish people are in a legal limbo in the USA, unable to come home for family weddings or funerals. They are terrified of getting sick and having to go into the mainstream system. I hope the Kennedy and McCain legislation will regularise their situation in the near future. We should remember them if we are tempted to criticise this Bill. Many of our own, some of them relations, are in the same situation in the USA. They went there because they needed to get a job and were unable to get one here. We must be conscious of the difficulties that can be faced by others.

We should not become arrogant just because we have become wealthier. Most of us are far better off than we ever were, although some families still face difficulties. We should not become arrogant as a result. We should never look down on anybody because for a long time people looked down on us. We were seen as gombeen men and the like, particularly by our main neighbours. We should be conscious of the need to help. However, there is a need for controls and the Minister is conscious of that. Things could change and that should be catered for in the legislation. I am not part of the Deputy Hogan school of forecasting but we must be able to monitor and control the situation we create.

6:00 pm

Photo of Michael D HigginsMichael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I welcome aspects of the Bill but I would have preferred if the House were discussing this legislation along with or following the Government's proposals for an immigration and residence Bill. I see areas of overlap between the functions of the two Departments and between the two Bills.

A practical problem arises from the drafting of these Bills. If one speaks about approved units of required labour, one will arrive at a very different set of conclusions than if one talks about workers' rights. I commend Deputy Dennehy's contribution and his reference to bonded labour, slavery and the Truck Acts; I totally agree with him. There are those who instead of speaking of the rights or workers, citizens and residents would like to have an uncontrolled situation of a low labour economy where workers' rights are stripped away. I hope such people hear a message from all sides of this House of deep disapproval for their actions and the attendant consequences.

I would have preferred if the legislation relating to immigration and residence had been taken before this Bill and if the United Nations Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families had been discussed. This UN instrument was adopted in 1990 and signed by Ireland. It had a ratification requirement of 20 and entered into force in July 2003 having passed that ratification threshold. If the convention had been in force, it would have protected workers in a much more general sense. It refers to frontier workers who reside in a neighbouring state and deals with the issue of circular migration and seasonal workers. It contains a specific reference to seafarers employed on vessels registered in a state other than their own, which is currently germane. I do not wish to argue about the responsibilities of Ministers but the ratification of this convention would be of immense value.

The convention also deals with an issue which will need to be addressed in any adequate immigration and residence Bill and it arises to some extent in the Minister's proposals — the information to which people are entitled. This Bill will deal with workplace information to which people are entitled but it would be ideal if this legislation was being run along with an adequate immigration and residence Bill because it could offer clarification and transparency on applications, appeals, social welfare rights and education rights.

The United Nations Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families deals with such issues. Its attraction is that it goes beyond the narrow framework of a required and approved unit of labour. The importance of implementation is raised in this legislation and will arise in the other legislation.

Those in charge of eliminating abuses or assuring compliance with the law relating to workers' rights are of the view that 50 inspectors are required. The Minister proposes 31 posts, an increase of 50% on the current complement of 21 inspectors but those charged with the responsibility for implementation have recommended a total of 50 inspectors.

Many speakers have made the distinction between this proposal, which is effectively a labour visa programme, and a green card programme. There is a fundamental difference between the green card system of the United States, which gives one the opportunity to progress to permanence and be enabled to enter the society, and this programme. I stress the phrase "enter the society". There are those who argue that one should be able to recruit people for the economy without necessarily allowing them the full benefits of citizenship rights within the society. This is a perilous road to go and is contrary the best practice of evolving international law and migrant rights.

How can we make a case for someone who accompanies a worker under this legislation? We argue in favour of the solidarity of family for good reasons in the case we are making for the Kennedy-McCain legislation.

Many years ago I studied migration in my other life. Certain distinct changes took place in the pattern of migration. Pre-Famine migration from Ireland was circular in that people left for the season. Deputy Dennehy made a good point in his argument against those who scaremonger. He asked the House to remember that some of the bothy fires in Scotland were associated with a deep apprehension of the impact of Irish workers on agricultural wages. People migrated for seasonal work and on their return experienced a rise in costs and excessive interest charged by the gombeen class entering the grocery trade at the time.

Migration to the United States began with the Famine. The major migrations were in the 1950s and between 1955 and 1960 more than one quarter of a million people emigrated, with the figure never dropping below 40,000 and usually nearer 60,000. In 1955 the figure was 58,000. This emigration was from rural areas, the people being lucky if they achieved primary school education. The males went into unskilled occupations and the females took up a broader range of occupations but mostly entered services.

The emigration of the 1980s was entirely different as it was primarily urban-sourced involving people who had a higher level of education and there was a dispersal into a wider range of occupations. In the 1980s, circular migration had replaced the main pattern of emigration and became the predominant type. Circular migration means that people return rather than emigrating forever.

People should be allowed be reunited with their families at significant events such as funerals, marriages and deaths, as was argued in the context of the Kennedy-McCain legislation. To be credible we should accord the same principle to those who come here. Who wants to say to people that they are allowed to come, not for five years but for two years and with no prospect of ever becoming permanent residents? In fact, if one was to seek to bring any of one's relatives here, one would run into the visa requirements of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who might well find that one's significant other is telling a cock and bull story at Dublin Airport and if he had time himself, he would go out to send him or her back home.

We cannot have it both ways. I suggest that the fundamental principle is the one with which I began, namely that we talk about workers, their families and their rights, internationally. The discussion should be grounded and founded in rights. That is what is contained in the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. That is a convention that accepts the principles of many other conventions and deals with short-term workers and so forth. Our aim should be to ratify that convention, regard it as the bedrock and then move towards the Government's proposals for an Immigration and Residents Bill, where we will then be able to fit in the concerns of the economy. In other words, the needs of the economy should not be the starting point but should come far later, if one approaches this issue from a rights perspective.

In the legislation as I read it — although we can tease this all out in the debate on Committee Stage — there is no transfer of access to employment to the employee. Effectively, as I understand it, the worker will be able to get a piece of paper indicating that he or she has permission to stay. Has that worker the right, for example, to initiate the application of another employer? I do not think so. The worker must find another employer who is willing to make an application.

A further problem arises in that many migrant workers who would be regarded by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as illegal, or out-of-status people, are people who began here legally. Under the old system, where the employer got the permit, if a worker had any difficulty, he or she falls out of legal status. There were also many unscrupulous employers who took people on and told them that they were applying for a permit. They assured workers that they were applying for permits but during that time, such workers had no rights at all.

There is an old, fundamental question that applies to this legislation as to why the dogs are not barking, given the absence of a stated opinion from IBEC. This legislation is somewhat soft with regard to the requirements it makes of IBEC. Frankly, the legislation as outlined is a description of a system of guest workers rather than a green card system, certainly by comparison with, for example, the Morrison system.

I have said I welcome provisions in the legislation and do so wholeheartedly. The idea that an employer could take the papers of an employee, hold them and use them as a threat over the employee, is, and always was, outrageous. I would have gone farther in the legislation with regard to the regulation and sanctions for the contract worker sector, where some of the abuses of employees have been most acute.

We are at a point where people on all sides of this House will have to decide where they stand on versions of the economy. In the United States last year, blue collar workers worked 240 hours longer than they did in the 1970s to retain the same purchasing power. If IBEC wants to engage in a confrontation with the people here, let us have it out in the open. I believe that IBEC is a disgrace, given its stated opinion on the Irish Ferries issue. I also believe that its behaviour regarding what happened in Aer Lingus, where people were effectively coerced out of their jobs, was quite disgraceful. IBEC did not dissociate itself from that situation. Nor has it been in a position to state that it does not run seminars providing information on how to get rid of employees or make them insecure.

We have all had lectures on social partnership. The reason Irish workers have one of the highest rates of productivity in Europe is not only to do with wages but with the attitudes towards work and employment here. We cannot degrade work to the level of so-called units of labour, provided in a context without rights, which is what IBEC would like, ideally. If IBEC disagrees with that, it must show us the evidence. It is not only on these issues that the organisation has been silent. One only has to think of IBEC members in the Irish banking system, speaking of clean governance or corporate responsibility. Such words should turn to ashes in their mouths, given the appalling levels of high remuneration that non-executive directors are drawing from the banking sector, which nobody can justify. The average worker is asked what he or she is doing and the dignity of work is associated with the nature of productivity. However, it seems to me that for some people work is only a matter of what they can consume at the trough.

It is encouraging to find that there are no people in this House standing up for this William Martin Murphy version of industrial relations. I welcome that. I also think that if the Government had ratified the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, it would be in a strong position to protect maritime workers. It is a great pity, if not a tragedy, that the Government was one of those that blocked a European directive prepared by the EU Commission that would have protected seafarers.

On examining this legislation, one must bear in mind the nature of migration and recognise that we are dealing with a worldwide phenomenon. The International Organization for Migration has calculated that in any one year, 175 million migrants are moving in different parts of the world. This raises a fundamental issue if one is framing thinking and policy in this area. Capital is now able to move in real time, but migratory flows are slower. However, that does not mean one should give fewer rights to migrants. It simply means that the condition is more acute.

I have outlined the aspects of the Bill that I welcome but it will, unfortunately, formalise a two-tier system. We will not be within an ass's roar of a rights perspective if we are giving different kinds of rights and very limited entitlements to people, based on income and salary. This is a visa system and not a green card system, certainly not by comparison with Bruce Morrison's approach. It is, in fact, a permit system. With regard to the initiation of the permit the Bill does not transfer rights fully to the employee. The employee is still stuck with the task of finding an employer. Furthermore, even when a non-national worker seeks a permit it is at the invitation of an employer. These are defects in the Bill.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment referred in his speech to a labour market of 20 million and a labour force of 2 million. This fact makes it all the more urgent that we make it clear that when working in Ireland, people will be working in an environment and context in which there is appreciation of workers and guarantees of their rights. That is the position that we must ensure prevails here.

Thankfully, there is no support for driving us down into a low-wage economy. Unfortunately, most of the abuses that have been noticed by the Immigrant Council of Ireland and others, have been perpetrated against very weak and vulnerable people. There have been outrageous abuses.

I appeal for an adequate inspectorate. There is no point in stating that the inspectorate has increased by 50%, when it has only risen from 20 to 30 inspectors. The inspectors themselves say that the inspectorate needs a staff of 50 to do its job effectively. I appeal to the Minister to have such consultations as will implement the improvements suggested in the legislation between now and the Committee Stage debate.

Photo of Charlie O'ConnorCharlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Employment Permits Bill. I listened carefully to many of the contributions today and I compliment my colleagues on them. When speaking on the legislation, it is important to be careful about our phraseology. It fits into the kind of week we are having in Dáil Éireann where partnership appears to be the theme. There is much talk about partnership and some union-bashing taking place. It will be interesting to see how the Private Members' debate on Irish Ferries proceeds and concludes tonight.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, whose work I am always happy to applaud. He does a great job on our behalf. He gave me an excellent Dáil response last week, which I would like to acknowledge.

I represent the constituency of Dublin South-West, which includes the major population centre of Tallaght. Since I first became involved in public life as a member of Dublin County Council in 1991, particularly over the past three years when I have had the honour of being a Dáil Deputy, the workload has changed and different issues have arisen. With other Dáil colleagues, I addressed a meeting in the National Library, organised by the Community Platform. While it touched on some of the issues relating to this Bill, it related generally to poverty and other issues of concern to many groups. I made the point that my nine weekly clinics have become a multicultural gathering. Issues now arise that did not arise three, five or ten years ago. Issues relating to this Bill are being brought to our attention, which is fair enough. It fascinates me that local people bring what I might describe as the "international community" to meet their local politicians. This indicates clear integration in these communities between local people and immigrants.

I live in a parish where there are challenges related to foreign nationals seeking employment. I live in an estate which was founded in 1972, and my local junior school, St. Mark's in Springfield, has approximately 300 international children out of an enrolment of approximately 500. It is clear that communities such as Springfield and Tallaght have changed over the years, partly as a result of some of the issues we are discussing this evening.

There are also issues relating to social welfare, whereby unemployment figures are increasing in communities when jobs are clearly available. This relates to the issue of work permits. The point was made that the Bill is another response to our skills and labour force needs,.

A number of different organisations in my constituency, particularly in Tallaght, have raised issues with me. I have also been in receipt of representations, which have been copied to other colleagues, from the Migrant Rights Centre in Ireland which is based in Parnell Square. A group from that organisation contacted me some time ago because they were anxious to visit the Parliament. People from a number of different countries arrived that evening and I introduced them to other colleagues. These people raised concerns about work permits being issued for two years, workers employed under work permits being allowed to change jobs and giving migrant workers employed under both categories the right to family reunification. While I am aware that organisations are entitled to make known their point of view, I am merely putting it on the record. Organisations who go to the trouble of contacting Members of the Dáil are entitled to a voice. I expect the Minister and his officials are considering the various representations received from various groups, not just in our communities but from centrally-based organisations. I hope the Minister will respond in this regard.

The Minister made the point that he had two key objectives in introducing the Employment Permits Bill. He is anxious to put in place a framework where he can implement and manage an economic migration policy, the details of which he confirmed in his speech. He also referred to providing a number of new and important protections for migrant workers. Migrant workers and their rights have been discussed over a long period. It is important to acknowledge that economic migration policy responded quickly to the improvement in the economic performance. This includes the reduction in unemployment and the resultant labour shortages.

My community is the third largest population centre in the country. I often said that Tallaght had the population of a city but the status of a village. Now, however, not only have there been huge improvements as far as the provision of infrastructure, facilities and services is concerned, but people are working, which is important to acknowledge. Prominent Opposition spokespersons from almost all parties no longer refer to Ireland's economy being in poor shape but to great progress. I am aware there are challenges in this regard.

Last week I met with visitors from Australia who had visited Dublin previously. They made the point that it has changed completely. They noticed a real change in many of the services available, including hotels, restaurants and fast food outlets. This is happening in every community throughout the country. It is right that the Minister should take account of these issues and challenges.

The situation has changed even since the accession of the new European member states on 1 May 2004. There are real challenges as far as migrant workers are concerned. In fairness — I will be brave enough to say it — not everyone in the country is happy about this change. My colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, has dealt with this important issue. After the legislation is passed, there will be challenges, and it will be interesting to see how the debate will continue. I do not believe the debate will end when the legislation is passed. There will always be issues and challenges.

The involvement in our economic success of migrant workers has been acknowledged in the legislation; the Minister made this point when introducing the Bill. Opposition colleagues will make different points — they may dot the i's and cross the t's, which is fair enough. However, I hope the legislation will be seen in a positive light as a response to the situation as it develops. We must be responsible in how we respond, the language we use and our attitude to getting the message across to our communities. Every community faces debate, difficulties and challenges and it is important that we should be responsible and, in particular, that we should be careful in our choice of language.

Last weekend I returned from the Ukraine as part of an Oireachtas delegation. It was an amazing experience and it was interesting to visit a country which also had a big brother neighbour to see how it is coping and developing. I tabled parliamentary questions this week on this and similar economies. Nowadays, Ireland has an amazing reputation abroad and the reaction of people when they realise one is from Ireland is interesting. It would not have happened years ago.

Ireland has gained an amazing reputation following the success of social partnership. A number of colleagues have been critical of this process but I have been a strong supporter. I come from a working class background and I was a trade union activist for a long time, although I made a clear choice to join Fianna Fáil. The party has a proud record of promoting social partnership. The Taoiseach has been a strong advocate and this has been acknowledged by Opposition leaders. We should be proud of the progress made and I hope those who criticise social partnership understand we must be careful not to tear down the fabric of the system. We are entitled to raise issues and score political points but, at the end of the day, the abolition of social partnership would be chaotic for everybody, not least the workers the Minister is trying to protect in this legislation.

The Bill provides that employment permits are granted to the employee and that the permit will outline rights and entitlements of the worker concerned. It prohibits recruitment related deductions from remuneration and the retention by the employer of the employee's personal documents. The legislation will also empower the Minister to formulate parameters within which an active economic migration policy may be pursued. This will be welcomed given that many Members have had to make representations on behalf of migrant workers who felt the need to speak out about their position. They will feel these new provisions are progressive. It is fair to put the emphasis on the worker rather than giving powers to employers to treat people as they wish.

Section 13 deals with the governance of the numbers and employment types for which employment permits may be granted. This should be examined in the context of the development of our economy. The domestic workforce needs to be supplemented in a number of industries. Some people in our communities will always be critical of migrant workers and the international community and they will feel there should be another way. Constituents often say to public representatives that our first priority should be to look after the local workforce.

I feel strongly about the future of social partnership and the need to support that process in every way. Much political debate involving both local and national politicians has centred on social partnership. While it is not under threat, people are having a go at it. Colleagues will raise this issue again later during Private Members' Business. While I am interested in the debate on Irish Ferries, I will also be interested in how the Tallaght players, Richard Dunne and Robbie Keane, are getting on with the national soccer team. I hope the Opposition will not seek many divisions so that we will be able to watch Ireland beat Switzerland.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There will only be three.

Photo of Charlie O'ConnorCharlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry for deviating but the Chair will not mind me mentioning my Tallaght heroes.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Only seven times so far.

Photo of Charlie O'ConnorCharlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This legislation increases the protection of migrant workers in a number of key respects. It is absolutely vital that foreign workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as domestic workers. While not everybody will agree, people are entitled to object in a democracy. Many other issues will be raised and debated over the next 600 days before the next general election, despite what a number of people would like to think. I hope the House will be careful in dealing with the issues of migrant workers, international communities and asylum to ensure the debate will remain positive and responsible.

It is important to acknowledge what has been done by the Minister and Ministers of State. I wish them well in this regard. This issue centres on protecting the economy, which has made tremendous progress. I will not upset my Opposition colleagues by suggesting things only started to happen when Fianna Fáil got back into power in 1987. I am not sure on a night of national fervour as we focus on Lansdowne Road that I should upset everybody. However, I am proud my participation as a member of Fianna Fáil and the work done by colleagues. I hope the Minister will put his head down to implement the legislation. It will require bravery in respect of a number of the provisions.

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to make my brief contribution tonight. I am always happy to be positive about my country, city and community. I look forward to supporting the Minister and his colleagues in ensuring the passage of the Employment Permits Bill.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá sé go maith go bhfuil muid ag díriú isteach ar cheist cheadúnais fostaíochta. Ceist mhór í atá ag déanamh tinnis do mórán daoine, ní amháin na daoine atá gafa leis na ceadúnais. Labhair an Teachta Arthur Morgan níos luaithe agus mar urlabhraí Shinn Féin ar cheart, comhionannas agus cearta daonna, ba mhaith liom gnéithe áirithe sa Bhille a ardú.

Conas a bhuanaíonn an Bille seo na polasaithe cuimsitheacha inimirce ar bhonn cearta daonna? Ba chóir dúinn sin a dhéanamh ach níl aon fhianaise sa Bhille go bhfuil an straitéis sin ann.

Teipeann ar an Bhille déileáil leis an cheist mhór, ceist na sclábhaíochta agus cé chomh leochaileach agus atá daoine atá sa staid sin. Cuireann sé in iúl cé chomh fimíneach is atá an Rialtas nár chuir sé aon fhorálacha sa Bhille a léireodh conas a dhéanfar oibrithe atá neamhchláraithe faoi láthair a chlárú agus a tharraingt isteach sa chóras mar a mhol muid an tseachtain seo caite d'Éireannaigh sna Stáit Aontaithe.

There are a number of questions I would like to pose in addition to those already raised. How will this Bill fit with the proposed immigration and residents Bill, which is expected in late 2006? That should have been the first item with subsequent legislation amended accordingly.

The Employment Permits Bill is inseparable from the broader immigration agenda of the Government and it is another example of the ad hoc, piecemeal approach the Government takes to immigration policy. Have the Minister and officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment actively engaged with the Minister and officials at the Department of Justice, Equality, and Law Reform to ensure there is a coherent approach to immigration? I see no evidence of it so far. Will elements of this Bill become obsolete on foot of promised legislation, namely the immigration and residents Bill?

Sinn Féin has repeatedly called for a well thought out, comprehensive immigration policy reform package. This would include the introduction of a positive immigration policy, underpinned by respect for human rights and a family-centred ethos appropriately reflecting an emphatic understanding gained through the experiences of our emigrants. This should recognise the significant potential contribution of migrants to our society.

In contrast, the ad hoc approach to immigration displayed by the Government, in the form of knee jerk responses to a so-called crisis and the cosmetic reforms introduced in particular by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has resulted in a collage of policies with no common raison d'être. This approach seems to be filling gaps in the domestic labour market and the common function seems to be to reduce migrants to economic units. That is a pity as we still have an opportunity to address immigration in a positive, human rights centred manner.

This Bill proposes to do no more than place existing policies on visas and work permits on a statutory footing. In stipulating the criteria to guide ministerial discretion it defines the public interest very narrowly, in terms of public order, national security, health and safety and the need to protect the labour market. It does not address fundamental issues that should be considered in determining the public interest, such as integration and family reunification. These would be required if it was a policy genuinely based on human rights.

I am concerned by the Bill's failure to reverse the current scenario whereby migrant workers are bound to one employer. This increases their vulnerability to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Simply posting a copy of the document to a migrant worker does nothing to change the situation of bonded labour.

As a result the Bill will fail to impact in a positive manner on trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Last week the Joint Committee on European Affairs heard evidence of what is happening in Europe and here. While there is a lack of solid data on trafficking in Ireland, figures from European Parliament research indicate large numbers of women are trafficked from eastern to western Europe each year for the purpose of prostitution. The failure of this Bill to guarantee all migrant workers the right to change employer means these circumstances have not been addressed. This contributes to the vulnerability of women to sexual exploitation.

The Government's failure to include measures that would offer undocumented workers routes to regularisation is hypocritical. In response to a question I raised last April the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, stated he would not consider an amnesty to regularise illegal workers. Last week a Minister promoted the introduction of a system to regularise undocumented workers in the United States. He espoused the benefits of such a scheme yet this Bill offers nothing to undocumented migrants here. This amounts to nothing short of hypocrisy.

This Bill has been promoted in some quarters as a green card system but this is not the case. A green card system offers pathways to citizenship and long-term residency but this Bill offers neither. A green card system offers the holder the ability to change from one employer to another, in order to better oneself, improve one's quality of life and avoid bullying, abuse and slave labour. A proper green card system is one we should examine rather than exacerbating the current, flawed, pro-employer system. This Bill does not contribute to a comprehensive, coherent policy of immigration based on human rights. It does not significantly reduce the possibility for exploitation of migrant workers.

James Breen (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In general, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. A number of its features are important to ensure that non-nationals working here are not used and abused as happened in the past. I have some reservations about matters not fully addressed in the Bill. I welcome the change in respect of work permits going directly to the worker concerned, with a copy sent to the employer. This will allow workers greater freedom and the ability to change employer provided they stay in the same line of work as the original work permit allows. There does not seem to be provision to change the nature of employment should that type of work no longer be required of if the employer ceases to trade.

We are using people in a manner that suits our current needs, consigning them to their fate when we no longer need their skills. This is unfair and runs against any sense of natural justice. There is a need for flexibility on the possibility of changing the nature of work so that non-national workers can feel more secure in their new life here.

I welcome the inclusion of the section whereby an employer cannot keep any personal documents such as a passport, documents regarding accounts in financial institutions, documents regarding skills and qualifications and travel documents of non-national workers. As we have seen in the past, this practice among some employers led to discrimination and the abuse of workers. To the best of my knowledge, however, there are many employers who have non-nationals working for them who are recruited by and working for agencies. Such employers contact the agencies to provide the worker and do not employ the non-national directly. My concern is that unless it is clearly stated in the Bill, some agencies may be in a position to retain such documents and abuse the worker involved. It must be clearly stated that nobody has the right to retain such documents belonging to any other person.

I welcome the provision that workers are to be paid the minimum wage as it will work towards preventing abuses that occurred in the past. Once again, however, it does not go far enough to ensure the worker is treated fairly. There should be a provision included stating that the standard wage for the job should be paid to non-national workers. That will not please the employers who seek to take advantage of cheaper labour but out of a sense of natural justice it is only fair that non-nationals be paid the same rate as Irish people for the same work. After all, the job is being offered to non-nationals because an Irish or EU citizen has not taken up such an offer. In this instance, a non-national worker should have the same employment rights as an EU citizen and should be paid accordingly for similar work.

The limited provisions contained in the Bill are long overdue and there is no reason the Government could not have introduced them a long time ago. Economists have been warning for years that a large number of skilled foreign workers are necessary for our future economic growth. If people were offered a fair wage for the work, it would stop situations arising such as the one Irish Ferries. We can avail of a non-national willing to come here to work but we should not boost our economy and standard of living at the expense of those people. If they are willing to help with the work, we should be willing to share the profits of their labour equally with them.

In the event of a permit being denied, the appeal is carried out by an officer appointed by the Minister for that purpose. That is unfair as an appeal should be lodged with an independent body to allow for the people to have a fair hearing. That process must be changed and an independent body formed to handle such appeals.

The Bill will go some way towards preventing the sort of abuse of foreign workers that has come to light in recent months. The provision of a green card system as a mechanism to recruit skilled workers is necessary. However, the Bill also raises some significant questions about the rights of the green card holder. If a green card holder believes he is being mistreated, for example, how should he proceed? Will he be able to seek alternative employment, spend a period of time unemployed or forced to leave the country? What about the amount workers must earn in a year? If they are to be paid the minimum wage they cannot earn a substantial amount. Where does that leave them?

The Bill does nothing to clarify the confusion surrounding the rights of foreign workers to bring their families to Ireland. Does the Government have any appreciation of the hardship suffered by these workers being apart from their families? What would be our reaction if Irish workers in foreign countries were denied the right to bring their families with them?

There is nothing in the Bill to help non-nationals to integrate into Irish society or to help Irish people to deal with different cultures and learn about inter-cultural living. Such provisions are necessary if we are to avoid inter-cultural conflict and stereotyping, which will lead to increased racism and be greatly detrimental to our society. The Bill needs to be improved greatly before it will have any beneficial effect on this society.

There are hundreds of undocumented Irish in New York and throughout the United States. I appeal to this Government to do whatever it can to ensure those people get an amnesty. After all, we opened up our air space to allow the transit of American troops to the war in Iraq. The Americans should now give us back something in return and legalise our Irish emigrants. Anyone who has been in the US for more than five years deserves that. We should encourage our Minister for Foreign Affairs to ensure that happens.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last week, this House supplicated itself before the US Congress seeking the regularisation of the position of the undocumented Irish, and the House spoke with one voice on that issue. It is unfortunate that this Bill is the nearest we get to legislation that reflects the position of people entering this country under circumstances that need to be regularised because it appears to be far from what we would want for our own citizens in countries and economies like the United States. Calling the residency permit allowed for in this Bill, which is nothing like the US green card system, a green card is playing loose and fast with language and creating unrealistic expectations about this Government's immigration policy, never mind its employment policy.

Forfás has submitted a report to the expert group on future skills needs and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The report is interesting in that it states something many of us have long believed but which needs to be put on the record and properly understood. Migration in terms of labour is good for the economy. Not only does it increase gross domestic product but it increases it to the extent that it is more or less neutral in terms of GDP per capita. The level of wealth we have with our current population is maintained with those who come here to provide their employment skills and increase our economic needs.

More importantly, migration in terms of labour is needed from the point of view of our dependency ratio. I refer to those who are in labour and those who depend on the fruits of that labour, including pensioners, young people and social services. Currently, we have a good dependency ratio in terms of other European countries but as we grow older as a country our indigenous population will not be able to sustain those standards and those employed in the Irish economic workforce will become less of a factor. It is unfortunate that we have not addressed those aims in this debate.

It is particularly unfortunate that when we had an opportunity for debate on immigration issues the Government was not more firm in tackling misconceptions on the part of the wider public. The tawdry affair that was the constitutional referendum on citizenship failed to get across the point that most foreign nationals are here for legitimate reasons. Most of them are here because they are part of the existing work permits system and this Bill is a poor way of thanking those who have come here and helped in the economic benefit this country has received over the past ten years because many of the problems that continue to exist in terms of bonded labour that migrant workers find themselves in will be perpetuated by this Bill. Their work permit, to all intents and purposes, is owned by their employer and their freedom to move from one employment to the other is restricted.

The social problems that many of these workers continue to experience in terms of family reunification remain unaddressed in this Bill. Unless the Government is willing, which I suspect it is not, to address these issues on Committee Stage, we are merely putting poor legislation on the Statute Book.

I want to record other aspects of the Forfás report, particularly the overview that organisation has carried out of skills shortages in our economy by occupation. The report claims there are shortages in construction, including architects, civil engineers, planners and quantity surveyors. In the financial area there appears to be a current shortage of accountants and tax experts. I find that surprising but that is what the report states. In engineering the system is not providing enough people in terms of design and production engineers and there is a shortage of technicians. In information technology, there is a shortage of computer analysts and programmers. In pharmaceuticals, there is a shortage of chemical engineers. In the health care area and across a range of areas we appear to have shortages, including in transport, sales and catering. Across a panoply of our economy we are likely to experience skills shortages in the coming years and unless we have a migration and an employment policy that is more proactive than the Government is prepared to put forward, we are lining ourselves up for serious economic difficulties in the future, because the Government continues to ignore the social consequences of failing to have an integrated policy in this area.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because it allows us to discuss migration and related problems here. Last week we had a frank and wide ranging, although too short, discussion on a similar policy in America. There seems to be unanimity in this House regarding the approach in America and this Bill has generally received a favourable response.

As party spokesperson on tourism I come into daily contact with many employers who are forced to employ non-nationals. Most of those working in Dublin as receptionists, porters or kitchen staff are non-nationals. Many come from EU member states and are entitled to be here but there is a demand to bring in more people from outside the European Union and this causes the problem.

There are many low-skilled jobs in tourism, such as cleaning and housekeeping. At times employers have difficulty finding Irish people to do this type of work. That is why they need a labour supply. This type of worker was exploited in the past. Under this Bill, however, the employee will have a permit which will ensure that type of exploitation does not happen in the future. Legislation for migrant workers must be firm and clear but also protect them. This is the first such Bill but probably not the last because more people will want to come to Ireland and will be needed here.

This Bill allows for a wide-ranging discussion. Two or three years ago visitors from America who came to Dublin expecting the usual céad míle fáilte and to hear an Irish accent at the hotel reception met people who were not Irish. While they did not object to that they could not get information or directions because these people knew neither the geography of, nor the events in, the city.

There should be a four or five week induction programme for people who come to work here. This might ensure that they understand the ethos of Irish tourism, namely, that visitors expect a friendly welcome whether from an Irish person or another. These workers should realise that and have the skills to provide that welcome. FÁS runs such courses but few are exposed to them. When I ask non-nationals working in hotels did they attend the FÁS course, few have even heard of it. The Minister of State might refer to that point in his reply to this debate.

There seems to be no structured language courses for migrant workers who do not speak English. This evening a person who is offering a language course for Polish people called me wanting to know if there were other people in the area to make the course viable, and there are. The VEC system could run English courses for migrant workers and others who come into the country. According to a recent survey in America, people there do not mind immigrants coming to their country who are willing to work and pay tax, as long as they learn to speak English. The same should apply here if people want to come to work and pay their taxes they should learn English and have the opportunity to do so. As part of our migrant policy we should set up a network of language classes for the immigrants, whose numbers are increasing.

We received a helpful document from the Immigration Council of Ireland showing that over the past ten years many migrant workers have come here, and between April 2004 and April 2005, almost 70,000 came. That is the highest figure since the Central Statistics Office series of annual migration estimates began. We will continue to face this problem because of the skill shortages here and the greater demand for immigrant workers.

I have met people who were exploited and am glad that the employee will now have more rights and be better protected as a result of this Bill. It is important that migrant workers be made aware of their rights when they come here. They should be made aware they can change employment here and not feel intimidated.

They should also have someone to whom they can complain. The labour inspectorate will be increased from 20 to 31 but that is a small number to carry out inspections across the country and ensure compliance with employment rights legislation. Those I met who were exploited, forced to leave the country and a few who felt terrorised were unaware of their rights, enforcement, or to whom they could complain. The provision of such information should be included in this legislation. From what the Minister has said and from having a cursory look at the Bill, I presume that when they get their work permits, all their rights will be included and attached. All the contact numbers that they need should be given. That is very important.

Regarding categories of workers, we are dependent on what Forfás sets out as our skill needs. At different times, different industries and parts of the country will need relevant skilled workers. Farming is becoming more dependent on technology and computerisation now plays a major role in it. Recently, however, an application for a permit for someone from Brazil was refused. I was asked to look into the matter and was told that it was a category of worker that can be sourced within the EU. That was not true, since the employer had tried and a person could not be found. The application was refused and is now no longer even being considered. As we know, since the country is stealing many of our markets in the beef industry, Brazil is becoming very progressive in agriculture. It is no accident and not simply because it can produce beef more cheaply. It is developing a highly technical type of farming, and we have much to learn from it.

Many people are also leaving the land, and some farmers find it difficult to find labour, even from Farm Relief. They therefore need experts at different levels. They need farm labourers, whom they can probably get within the country and certainly within the EU, but they also need others. In this instance, the Brazilians could have supplied that expertise. Unfortunately, the farmer in question was unable to bring them in. I know that it may not be possible for the Minister to reply on this aspect of employment permits but it certainly deserves his consideration.

Pillar two of the employment permits system is something with which I certainly agree, namely, the intra-company transfer scheme. Some companies in this country could do with some new thinking. Many managers have been there since the late 1980s or early 1990s and are suffering from fatigue and burn-out. The Celtic tiger was really spawned by the distress of the Irish worker at every level. Management in this country played a very important role in it, and this transfer scheme is very important, since it could bring much-needed expertise to the country. People like to travel and bring their families with them or wait until they have grown up. Some managers at very high levels of industry in companies around the world are single. We must attract such people to the country, and perhaps some of them might stay if they like it here. That certainly provides an opportunity, not only for employees but for the country itself.

Recently we have experienced a lack of scientists. We should try to attract back our own scientists who are all over the world. There has been a major drain to America, an area where one will not hear anyone from Ireland or Europe complaining. The Americans will attract scientists or people who have done valuable research. I recently saw an article in Time that discussed the brain drain from Europe. The USA has a definite policy of paying such scientists very well to attract them from Europe to conduct research in Silicon Valley and a similar area in Pennsylvania. They are trying to take people at that level, whereas we are losing them. We do not seem to have any policy to attract them back into this country. We should have one and we should also try to attract postdoctoral researchers to Ireland.

Overall, I certainly welcome this Bill. It is an attempt to produce a totally new policy and give order to existing practice, making it fair and safe for people to come and work in Ireland and to stop the exploitation of which we have heard so many examples. I can see that in this House we will be discussing immigration, emigration and employment permits again within two or three years, since they will very much become part of this country.

7:00 pm

Photo of Pat BreenPat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this evening's opportunity to speak on this Bill, the provisions of which are further evidence of the inadequate approach that the Government is taking to people who wish to work here and contribute to the Irish economy and Irish life. A proactive approach to immigration is required instead of the cautious one taken in this Bill.

The Government parties have failed to attach due importance to the economic role of migrant workers here in Ireland. They are now a crucial part of the economy, paying taxes, doing essential work and contributing to the dynamics of a modern society. In my constituency and county, we see their Trojan work in building many of the walls. They do a tremendous job, and I also know that many farmers who employ such migrant workers are very happy with their work, finding them very skilful, co-operative, dedicated and hard-working.

It is well documented that Ireland has traditionally been a country of emigration rather than immigration. The last ten years have seen a reversal of that phenomenon, with Ireland now experiencing net immigration.

I look forward to continuing the debate tomorrow morning.

Debate adjourned.