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

Deputy Burton was in possession and had 12 minutes remaining. As she is not present, does any Member on the Government side wish to contribute?

Síle de Valera (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will conclude Second Stage.

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

I call Deputy Joe Higgins, who has 20 minutes.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment said in his Second Stage contribution that he would introduce a managed economic migration policy. The Bill certainly does not represent migration policy — in no sense can it be considered as such. It is a work permits Bill making some extra provisions, one or two of which I welcome, but it falls far short of being a comprehensive migration Bill providing for migrants entering Irish society and making a new life here.

When the Minister addressed the detail of the Bill, it was quite clear he was saying it is a revamped work permits policy. He said there are three pillars to the Bill, the first of which is the establishment for the first time in Ireland of a green card for occupations where there are skills shortages. He stated this will be for a restricted list of occupations in the annual salary range from €30,000 to €60,000 and a more extensive list of occupations in the annual salary range above €60,000. To refer to the system as a green card system is entirely misleading. The Irish experience of a green card system is that which operates in the United States from which tens of thousands of our people have benefited. Unfortunately, there are also tens of thousands of Irish on the streets of Boston, New York and Chicago, illegally, and that is a matter of concern to me. Those who received a green card could make a new life on the same basis as American citizens or any other residents in the United States. The Employment Permits Bill, however, does not make the same provision. It is unfair, incorrect and misleading to make claims for the Bill that do not stand up.

The first pillar of the Bill identified by the Minister, namely, the special provision for workers earning more than €60,000 a year and between €30,000 and €60,000, raises serious ethical issues about the philosophy behind this provision. Those migrants, particularly those in the €60,000 plus group, have unlimited freedom to come here and take up job opportunities that would command an annual salary at that level. The Minister said in his opening speech that high pay is a reasonable proxy for high skills. He also said this provision addresses a high level and strategic skills shortage. This is completely different from the experience in the United States.

As I prepared my remarks on the Bill and read its provisions and the Minister's comments, I recalled the poem, "The New Colossus", by Emma Lazarus, inscribed on a bronze plaque near the Statue of Liberty. The all-embracing welcome inherent in this poem is no longer the case in the United States. In the 1800s, however, the situation was different, as Irish people and the millions of others who migrated to America were grievously exploited. When the tragic events unfolded recently in New Orleans I found that in the 1800s thousands of Irish workers perished from disease and abuse while constructing the city. In the poem the voice of the statue says:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

In this provision, restricted to highly skilled people, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment effectively says to the poor countries outside Europe: "Keep your tired, your poor and your huddled masses but give us those who are highly qualified and skilled, your surgeons, specialist doctors, nurses, computer and engineering experts."

This poses an ethical problem because the Government has for some years had a consistent policy of poaching skilled people from caring and other professions in countries regarded as the Third World or bordering thereon. The poor in those countries desperately need these professionals. Now one of the richest countries in Europe is taking these skilled people from poorer countries and using them to enhance the wealth of its society without having paid for their education. This provision copperfastens the ethical problem.

The Bill proposes some welcome changes for those workers earning less than €30,000 a year. It gives them a greater degree of freedom because once the worker has a work permit, he or she will be able to change employments and will not be tied to one boss as at present. That is welcome as far as it goes but it does not go very far. Many questions arise because we have often pointed out the extent of migrant workers' dependency on the boss who brings them here under the current system.

In the new system it costs €1,000 for an employer to take on a migrant worker on a two-year contract. Under what conditions will that migrant worker be able to move to another employer? Knowing the nature of the capitalist I cannot see a boss forking out €1,000 only to see his or her employee moving to another employer after four weeks. The Minister says employers may not seek remuneration for that €1,000 but there is a contradiction in this. I hope I can be enlightened on how it is proposed to deal with this issue.

The overall policy by which the Government seeks to cream the best educated and most skilful people from poor countries and excludes other categories of working people from those societies is fundamentally unethical, unjust and discriminatory.

The other pillar of this Bill, according to the Minister, is to strengthen the rights and protection of migrant workers. I strongly endorse that aspiration but am not convinced the Bill provides for a comprehensive strengthening of rights and protection.

Major abuse is taking place in the economy in the employment of migrant labour and it has been growing apace. The proposal by Irish Ferries to replace 543 workers on trade union rates of pay and conditions with semi-bonded migrant labour on disgusting rates of pay and conditions shocked because it was so blatant. The company felt sufficiently emboldened to come out in front of the world and make this shocking proposal, but what it represents has been going on in society for a considerable number of years in many areas of employment, especially in the construction, meat and hospitality industries to name but three.

What we outlined in the institutionalised exploitation machine represented by Gama merely reflected what was going on, although not to the same degree of exploitation, in many other sectors of construction and in many other companies. Now, those who are most abused are not from outside the EU but are eastern European workers. They would not be on the Gama pay rates of €8 per hour. They could be getting €8 or €9 per hour but significantly less than the registered agreement rates in the construction industry. Construction bosses abuse vulnerable migrant labour to undercut Irish workers and other migrant workers who insist on a trade union rate, and they are also worsening conditions. If that trend is not stopped, a serious future is promised in relations between working people in this State against a background of a recession in the economy.

While growth rates are at present levels, the economy can absorb most of the labour offered along with workers in employment who feel they are undercut and under threat. However, in a recession when thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of jobs are cut, for example, in the construction industry, the basis is then laid for a vicious struggle over wage rates and jobs as ruthless employers seek to continue to employ exploited labour and employ more of it if there are higher unemployment levels in society rather than employ labour which insists on trade union rates of pay and conditions.

That is a real danger and the Government carries a heavy responsibility in the area. I am not convinced of the bona fides of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in any sense because it is part of the current EU neoliberal consensus which wants to squeeze more productivity out of workers, meaning greater exploitation of workers, and which sought the opportunity for employers to be able to employ cheaper labour than workers on the established trade union rates of pay.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment referred to the increase in the number of inspectors. I welcome that but the numbers should be much greater. The inspectors investigate what is brought to their attention, complaints made and so on. When we made public the Gama scandal, the work done by inspectors and the dedication they brought to it as public servants was impressive. However, a broader and more radical approach is now needed. I call for an investigation and research into targeted industries to see what levels of exploitation and abuse exist there.

There is a particular level of organised exploitation in the meat industry and factories and an undercutting of decent rates of pay and conditions. I would like to see former meat workers from those factories interviewed. They could be Irish or migrant workers who previously worked for trade union rates and refused to work for less. They now say they cannot find work in Irish meat factories at trade union rates because of the deliberate employment of migrant workers to undercut a decent rate of pay and decent conditions.

The trade unions have a critical role in all this. I was critical of elements of the trade union movement in allowing the Gama scandal to exist for four years. However, when a senior SIPTU official and the union took responsibility for the strike and the negotiations, directed by the workers' own Turkish strike committee, that became a crucial factor in winning important concessions. In following up on the Gama sites to ensure that all the workers are getting their proper rates and conditions, SIPTU is playing a very important role.

I now want the trade union movement to form an A-team to go into the economy and organise migrant workers everywhere so that exploited labour cannot be used in any job, and to follow the example of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in the earlier part of this century in America who did excellent work among migrant workers by bringing them in from the fringes where they were exploited and welding them together with the general workforce. That is what we need as an answer to the employers and those would ruthlessly exploit the vulnerable, particularly the migrant workers in our society.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Deputy Joe Higgins on the stand he took for migrant workers in this country and on how he fought for them. We talked in this House for a long time about the abuse of migrant workers in this country. We are the greatest hypocrites in the world. There is no Member of this House who has not had a relative who had to go abroad, either to England, America or Australia. It is not too many years ago in this country that we had judges offering people before the courts the choice between Australia and jail. At that time we were glad to get rid of as many people as possible from this country. It is not long since we had Ministers in this House saying that it was good and important for the country to get as many people as possible out of this State because we could not provide them with employment.

The tide has turned. I never thought we would see in this country, particularly in my county of Mayo, so many workers taking up work which our people will not do. Deputy Joe Higgins has previously pointed out in this House that migrant workers must be protected. We are great in this House for bringing in wonderful legislation but the problem is that we do no more than bring it in. We have nobody to monitor it. The only time legislation is monitored in this House and there are sufficient people to deal with it is when there is money to be collected for the Government. In that case, sufficient staff will be put in place.

The most important part of this Bill relates to the protection of workers, especially migrant workers. There is no point in pretending they are not being used and abused in this country. Shame on the employers involved. They should look back to our past when many Irish people took up menial jobs in America and were used and abused there. Irish people built roads in America but now Irish immigrants to that country are refused driving licences. We look for protection for our illegal emigrants in America and elsewhere but we are not prepared to protect people who come to this country to take up employment.

For three years, a Latvian woman worked in my town who saved money, returned home twice each year and presented no burden to the State. She made an application to bring her husband and ten year old child to Ireland because she could no longer remain apart from them. She did not want the State to pay for them but she was refused on the basis she did not have sufficient money to support them. Unlike many Irish people who squander money on alcohol and cigarettes, she worked hard and saved. However, she had to leave the country because the family could not remain here. The hotel for which she worked was upset to lose her because she was a good worker.

There is nothing in this legislation to support people who are willing to work rather than look for social welfare and who want to live in this country with their families. The woman's husband would have easily found employment and would not have been a burden on the State. All the couple wanted was a work permit or a visa to allow the husband come here but we would not provide either. We are the most hypocritical country in the world. We want everybody to look after us but are not prepared to help these people. We should accept a proportion of the illegal immigrants that we deport every day. Appropriate legislation should be introduced to ensure such people are protected.

I was disappointed with the provisions in this Bill on work permits, which should be given to the employee rather than the employer so that, if the former is unhappy or is sought by another company, he or she will have the opportunity to move on. Otherwise, it is like putting these people in jail because the employer can retain the permit and use the threat of deportation to force the employee to work unsuitable hours. That matter should have been addressed.

If an immigrant receives six consecutive work permits while working for the same employer, he or she can then apply for citizenship. This requirement should be reduced to three years because an employee will have established a record and paid PRSI and tax during that period and will have proved that he or she is prepared to remain in this country.

What are we going to do to protect migrant workers? Will we employ more inspectors and give them more powers to enter places of employment to ensure employees are treated appropriately? The transport industry abuses migrant workers by making them drive vehicles for more hours than is legal. Employers falsely advise drivers that they will be protected if they are caught. I hope the inspectorate will investigate this area.

People are coming to this country who want to make a living and they should be protected. However, rather than protect people, this Bill will make it more difficult to work here. That should not be the case because while the population is increasing, insufficient Irish people are prepared to work in certain sectors, such as the services industry. We should be delighted that people want to work here, many of whom are well educated but cannot find work in their own countries. It is good for the country.

What will we do in terms of inspectors? Will we appoint more people and give them greater powers? Will they ensure that migrant workers are protected? Deputy Joe Higgins correctly noted that the events with regard to Gama were scandalous. Similar situations exist that we do not know about. That company came here from Turkey and abused the Irish system and did not pay its workers proper wages until the courts dealt with the issue. I hope we will never allow such a situation to develop again. We should remember the treatment abroad of Irish workers. We were not able to resolve their problems. It would be terrible if we allowed employers to bring people to Ireland on work permits and then abuse them.

An information document should be given to migrant workers alongside their work permit which would advise them where to make a complaint if they are abused or their rights are not met. Such a provision should be introduced on Committee Stage. Some migrant workers have poor English and require time to become accustomed to Ireland. It would not cost a fortune to provide information to them.

Irish employers threaten to hire workers from abroad to reduce their wage costs. While unemployment was once a significant issue in this country, we are now told there is almost full employment. Workplaces in which large numbers of migrant workers are employed should be inspected on a regular basis to enforce appropriate pay levels and conditions and to ensure workers are not used as an excuse. This year, a number of complaints were heard in Westport and other tourism destinations in terms of difficulties in finding summer work.

The migrant workers employed in hotels in Westport are settled in the community and are good workers. They go home on a regular basis and send as much money as possible back to their families in the same way as Irish people working abroad did in the 1930s and 1940s prior to the establishment of the European Union. The money that came from Irish people working in America and Britain kept this country alive, and these people are doing that now in respect of their countries. I hope we can protect these workers better than Irish workers were protected in America and Britain in the past and that we have learnt from our past mistakes. I hope that legislation will be introduced to deal with illegal immigrants. We cannot be hypocritical with Members travelling to America to try to look after our own and forgetting about looking after illegal immigrants living here.

We are facing a general election and it will not be long before some Fianna Fáil backbenchers use the issue of immigrants to try to get themselves elected. There used to be the green card issue and now the issue is foreign workers and illegal immigrants coming to live in this country. If people speak out of turn in that context, I hope they will be dealt with by the Taoiseach and that legislation will be in place to deal with such racists. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot try to get our people in America protected when people who come into this country are not protected. I hope that legislation will be introduced in future to deal with them.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate on this legislation which is long overdue. Originally it was to be published prior to Easter 2003 but it not published until June of this year. It was so long in gestation that I expected it to be a much more comprehensive and radical Bill. I am disappointed with it, particularly with the lack of integration and connectivity between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The issues that give rise to this Bill are deeply connected to the remit of both Departments. I refer to issues of work permits, naturalisation, citizenship, asylum and visas. The Bill does little or nothing to provide for integration between the two Departments in dealing these issues.

There are a number of aspects to the background to this Bill. One is the population change in recent years. There has been an increase in the population and a further increase is forecast. The Central Statistics Office indicated that during the period up to 2030 our population will grow from 4 million to 5.5 million. Births are outstripping deaths by approximately 31,000 on an annual basis. We have approximately 63,000 births and approximately 32,000 deaths. Therefore, there is a natural increase in the population annually. The make-up of the population is changing. Migrants have moved here and many Irish people have returned home in recent years. Asylum seekers and, more recently, migrants from the new EU member states, particularly eastern European countries, have moved here. We now have a workforce of approximately 2 million.

Another aspect, which is as important if not more so, to the background to this legislation and the area with which it deals is that a particular economic philosophy is underpinning the situation that is arising. I refer to the race to the bottom for wages and conditions and profit being the motive for everything. Other speakers would have called this neoliberalism but Irish people would probably know it much better as Thatcherism. It might be more appropriate if we called it rampant capitalism. What is emerging is being promoted not only here but at EU level. It is a race to bottom to minimise wages, undermine conditions and bring all employment and wages to the lowest common denominator. That is a phenomenon we have seen over recent years in this country and is one that is supported by various agencies both here and at EU level.

Last year we saw from where that was coming. The services directive introduced by the European Commission last year was the basis for that particular philosophy whereby the Commission wanted to ensure that companies, particularly those from eastern European countries, could operate in other European countries like Ireland and the more advanced countries on the basis of wages and conditions that existed in their own countries. That is fundamentally immoral and is a policy which, if continued with, can only lead to the undermining of wages, conditions and, ultimately, society in this and other European countries.

Unfortunately, our European Commissioner is at the heart of this policy and even in today's newspapers we see that he is at the forefront of that policy. The Irish Times today states:

Mr. McCreevy was summoned, with commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, to the parliament yesterday to explain comments he made during a recent visit to Sweden about a labour dispute, which has been referred to the European courts by the Swedish labour court.

What did Mr. McCreevy say?

[He] told the European Parliament that he should not have to justify remarks he made in relation a legal dispute between the Swedish government and a Latvian construction company over wage agreements.

The Irish Times regarded it as sufficiently important to have a leader article on it, the first few lines of which states:

Charlie McCreevy has been in the news around Europe because of his remarks on the EU's internal market and how it relates to labour market practices in Sweden. He has defended a Latvian building company's case in that it was not obliged to pay Swedish pay rates on a contract in the town of Vaxholm. The company was forced to withdraw after it was picketed by Swedish trade unions.

I say "well done" to those trade unionists.

That is the type of economic philosophy being handed down from Europe and, unfortunately, it is being bought into here. The reaction of IBEC to the situation at Irish Ferries, which wants to dismiss 543 Irish workers and replace them with what is effectively slave labour, is an indication of that philosophy. IBEC could not find the courage to oppose that development and to take its constituent company to task on it. Furthermore, a number of economic commentators, one in particular, said on a radio programme recently that the Irish Ferries situation is a good development. That was said by a well known economic commentator. Unfortunately, the Labour Court added to this situation when it recently agreed a deal that allowed Irish Ferries to introduce the same conditions on the MV Normandy and our Department funded redundancy payments on the back of that recommendation.

Unfortunately, there is a fundamentally flawed economic philosophy driving the situation behind the subjects we are discussing that can only lead to major difficulties in the future if it is not stopped. An element of that economic philosophy is privatisation. Irish Ferries is a good example as it was a State company that was privatised and is now being driven by its management to a position whereby it wants to disregard its Irish workers and employ eastern European labour at a fraction of the current wages and conditions of employment. I think I heard the Taoiseach say this morning that there was a difficulty in challenging this issue and particularly the matter of flags of convenience because of some constitutional problem. If there is a constitutional problem, the Government should put a referendum to the people to ensure it is dealt with.

This race to the bottom goes to the core of society and will do serious and irreparable damage to it if it is not dealt with. This issue is driven at EU and national levels by various agencies. It is a four-pronged attack where migrant workers within the State are abused and used to drive down wages and conditions of employment which in turn abuses them and their families, the services directive is used to allow eastern European countries to ply their trade in this and other European countries at rates of pay and conditions of employment that exist in those countries, and there are the issues of privatisation and flags of convenience.

No matter what legislation is introduced, even if it is Rolls Royce legislation, it is of little or no value if there is not proper enforcement and monitoring. Unfortunately that has been the case in the past and continues to be the case. For example, the labour inspectorate does a good job within the resources available and when allowed. I concur with Deputy Joe Higgins who said that when the problem at Gama was brought to their attention, they dealt with it in an efficient and upfront manner. However, the number of labour inspectors is small, being 31 at the last count, while a minimum of 100 are needed.

In recent years sufficient resources have not been made available to that inspectorate and, as a result, the inspectorate is not as active as it should be. In 2002 there were 8,323 inspections but in 2004 the number had fallen to 5,160, a reduction of more than 3,000 in a two-year period. In the same period there were 25 prosecutions in 2002 and only 14 in 2004. I ask the Minister to make available sufficient resources to the labour inspectorate to ensure it can do its job. Given our diverse workforce of 2 million people, a properly resourced labour inspectorate is essential to ensure workers, migrant or Irish, are not abused. The number of cases being brought to the Labour Court is such that it is becoming clogged.

There is another element relating to the labour inspectorate, the exploitation of workers and the benefit to companies over other genuine companies. In the Gama case there was the exploitation of the Turkish workers who worked long hours for small wages which were siphoned into accounts in European banks. Thankfully that issue has been dealt with. However, there are other knock-on effects in companies like Gama. I refer to the PRSI exemption which allows companies such as Gama, which has abused its workforce, to quote for work and undercut Irish and non-Irish employers for public service contracts. While Gama Construction was being investigated by the labour inspectorate, it contracted for the Castleblayney bypass and was successful, perhaps on the basis of the PRSI exemption which gives it a 2% to 3% advantage over other companies. That PRSI exemption is neither fair nor reasonable and should be addressed.

Employers refer to this exemption. At a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business the electrical contractors indicated that the labour inspectorate did not have sufficient resources to monitor its industry and they were fearful of being undercut by companies which were not paying the rate for the job and were, therefore, winning contracts on an unfair basis.

I wish to address a related issue, that is, access to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I refer specifically to the case of Stefan Dan Alexiuc, a Romanian constituent, who has been working in Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, for more than four years and has a work permit. He applied for a D visa for his wife to bring her here and be together as a family but was refused by the Department. He has appealed that refusal and has again been refused. The information from the Department is scant. He has been refused on financial and relationship grounds. The Department will not tell him or me what that means and it is almost impossible to get through to the Department. I understand it is available to deal with queries for two hours on two days per week. I ask the Minister to speak with her Cabinet colleague and ask that at least an Oireachtas Member inquiry line be made available to Members inquiring about cases.

Stefan Dan Alexiuc has been working for four years in Carrick-on-Suir and earns between €400 and €500 per week. In his letter to me he said:

I enclose a few of my last payslips. I also have a Bank of Ireland credit card with a €2,000 limit. The rent that I pay is €40 a week, so I would say that I can support financially both my wife and I. Actually, I am already supporting a child from a less developed country, Vietnam, thanks to Action Aid.

I come across cases such as this on a regular basis, as I am sure do other Members of the House. The Department should have a more open manner in dealing with them. Members of the Oireachtas in particular should have more open access to the Department.

I refer to the case of Jehosh Tunde Adekiyesi who is married and has been in Ireland and at work since 1998. He has bought a house here through a local authority loan. He recently received a deportation order. I ask the Minister to look into that case.

The background to this Bill and the economic philosophy driving the process is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed. While the Bill will be of some assistance to workers, particularly migrant workers, it is not the legislation I would like to have seen introduced.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate which is long overdue. Like a number of Deputies who have already spoken, I deeply regret it took so long to publish this Bill which has been promised in every legislative programme going back as far as the spring of 2003. I am not sure why it took the Government so long to come up with this legislation which does little more than put the current regime on a statutory footing. Those of us who wish to see substantive changes that will provide real protection for migrant workers must, unfortunately, continue to wait because they are not clearly provided for in this legislation.

The present system is a two-tier system in which certain categories of migrant workers have considerably greater rights and freedoms than other categories. The Bill does nothing to change that. The right to change employer will still belong only to the workers in the top tier. Those in the bottom tier will still be bound to their employer. The Bill indicates the Minister's intention to retain categories of employment deemed ineligible for new work permits, which I regret. I know from the testimony of my constituents that this causes great difficulty for migrant workers as it makes it all but impossible for many of them to change jobs. I note that the Department's expert group on future skills needs and Forfás have recommended that the "ineligible" designation be abolished. I hope the Minister will give that proposal the serious consideration it deserves.

Under this legislation, only top-tier workers will have the right to avail of the new scheme which is being misleadingly referred to as a green card scheme. This is nothing like the green card system used in the United States and the Government and media should stop using this phraseology which is just confusing the public by giving them the sense of equivalence between the two when clearly no similarity exists. In the American system, "green card" is an informal term for the status which is officially called "permanent residence". It is granted only once and it is permanent. It does not need to be renewed after a few years, as the scheme on offer here will.

The lack of permanence is a real problem for migrant workers. Many have found it difficult to open bank accounts or take out mortgages because they could not prove to the bank's satisfaction that they would be here in a few years' time. There is also a psychological factor which should be taken into account. I have spoken to many immigrants in my constituency who have conveyed to me their sense of insecurity and instability arising from their temporary status. It is as if there is a voice in the back of their head constantly reminding them of the uncertainty of their future. Under this legislation that uncertainty will remain.

The American green card system has another fundamental difference in that it is not limited to workers in a certain category or above a certain income level, as this one is. It is doubtful that many of our emigrant relations, to whom reference was made earlier, could have qualified for a green card if the system mooted here had applied in the United States. The Minister stated in his opening remarks that the only eligible occupations will be those in a salary range above the average industrial wage and that most of the eligible occupations will involve salaries of twice the average industrial wage. This will exclude large numbers of migrant workers. The implication of such a policy is that workers earning below these levels are expendable and that their contribution to our economy and society is minimal. The truth is very different. We are reliant upon these workers, many of whom do jobs that few of us would be willing to do.

The Bill does not address one of the issues of greatest concern to migrant workers, namely, whether they will be allowed to have their spouses and children with them in the State. The Minister has indicated that the present situation will continue in which workers must meet a certain income threshold before they can bring their families here. This is discriminatory and degrading. Workers on lower incomes are just as entitled to the care and companionship of their families. Furthermore, the Migration Policy Institute has identified the absence of provision for family reunification as one of the key factors encouraging illegal immigration. This policy therefore is also short-sighted and in the long run will only cause problems, not solve them.

The Bill also fails to address the issue of employment rights for spouses of work permit holders. Again, the Minister has indicated that the present situation will continue in which only the spouses of top-tier employees may work without restriction. This policy is one of the reasons lower tier employees often cannot rise above the income threshold required to have their families with them. If their spouses were given the same rights as those of top-tier migrant workers, and there is no legitimate reason they should not be, this problem would arise much less often.

It is not just the spouses of work permit holders who suffer under the present regime. I am increasingly hearing of the problems being faced by the non-national spouses of Irish citizens due to restrictions on their employment while their residency application is pending. I have recently tabled a number of questions on the subject to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform because I have heard so often of the difficulties it causes. At present an application to remain in the State based upon marriage to an Irish citizen takes 16 to 18 months to be approved. During this time the non-national spouse cannot work without a work permit. A period of 16 to 18 months is too long for two people to live on one income in our economy. While I understand the concerns about fraudulent marriages and while other countries quite obviously have the same concerns, nonetheless many of them, including the US and Britain, allow spouses to work while their applications are being adjudicated.