Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, 9 to 15, inclusive, 29 to 33, inclusive, 35 to 37, inclusive, 39 to 44, inclusive, 46 to 57, inclusive, 102 to 109, inclusive, 111 to 124, inclusive, 127, 128, 132 to 139, inclusive, 151 to 156, inclusive, 158 to 161, inclusive, 163 to 170, inclusive, 174, 175, 178 to 181, inclusive, 184 to 201, inclusive, 203, 204, 207 to 214, inclusive, and 220 to 222, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 6, to delete "NON-NATIONALS" and substitute "FOREIGN NATIONALS".

This arises from the debate on Committee Stage on the use of the term "non-national". Prior to 1999, the term "alien" was used consistently in immigration legislation and it continues to be used in a number of countries. In some countries the term used is non-citizen. There are a number of terms in use generally. In moving this amendment I accept the points made by Deputies Howlin, Hogan and Morgan. We have decided that "foreign national" is the appropriate term and the 2003 Act is also hereby amended to say that "foreign national" means a non-national within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1999 which defines it as a person who is not a citizen of the State.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister's amendment. A number of alternatives were put forward such as foreign national, non-Irish national and non-EEA national. The Minister has agreed that to deprive people of nationality by simply calling them non-nationals was an unacceptable position. I welcome the Minister's amendment.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I submitted an amendment with regard to a non-EEA national. I hope the Minister accepts that the term "non-EEA national" describes more accurately the person to whom the Bill will apply because people within the EEA area will clearly not require work permits. Therefore, that would be the more relevant amendment.

Amendment No. 18 proposes to delete, in page 6, line 17, the definition which "has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2003" and proposes the insertion of, "means a person who is not a citizen of a member state of the EEA". The Minister of State has not tabled an amendment which would effect the definition in the 2003 Act. As it stands, if the Minister's amendment is carried, that Act would be inaccurate, if not meaningless, because it defines non-national but does not provide a definition of a foreign national. I ask the Minister of State to address the question of whether an amendment is required to deal with that description.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very pleased that these amendments have been accepted and that the Minister of State has put them down in his name. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, had a serious problem with this matter on Committee Stage. Non-national is a derogatory term, but the Minister, Deputy Martin, had no understanding of that a number of weeks ago. I was quite embarrassed on Committee Stage, having put down all these amendments, to sense that the Minister was not in favour of turning. However, I am delighted that the Minister of State, who is far more broad-minded, has accepted them. Due to the harsh response I received on Committee Stage, I did not feel it appropriate to table the amendments on Report Stage, but I am glad that my colleague, Deputy Howlin, has provided the terminology that is more appropriate to the Bill.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure Deputy Hogan that the Minister, Deputy Martin, is entirely on board in accepting this terminology and the point was strongly made by Deputies Hogan, Howlin, Morgan and others. I dealt with the specific point raised by Deputy Morgan in my statement, in that the 2003 Act is also hereby amended to state that "foreign national" means a non-national within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1999, which defines it as a person who is not a citizen of the State. Due to the fact that those two Acts are impacted upon, the non-EEA national would be the less appropriate amendment in these circumstances. That is why we opted for the term "foreign nationals". Language, its usage and sub-text meaning changes and that has to be reflected in legislation in so far as is possible.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the U-turn.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, lines 16 and 17, to delete "NON-NATIONALS" and substitute "FOREIGN NATIONALS".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 18, to delete "NON-NATIONALS" and substitute "FOREIGN NATIONALS".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 23, to delete ", unless the context otherwise requires".

I am advised by the parliamentary counsel that this wording is no longer necessary and, accordingly, I propose to delete it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why was the Minister of State called first? This is my amendment and his name was merely added to it. I alerted the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on Committee Stage that my advice on such matters is seldom wrong and that the phrase is redundant, following the Interpretation Act 2005. I am glad he now agrees with my analysis.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should have acknowledged that Deputy Howlin brought this to our attention.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 26, to delete ""application by a non-national"" and substitute ""application by a foreign national"".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, line 35, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, line 2, to delete "a non-national, for the time being employs a non-national" and substitute the following:

"a foreign national, for the time being employs a foreign national".

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 16, 101 and 141 are related and may be discussed together, by leave of the House.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

""family" means spouse, partner (opposite or same sex) and children of a permit holder;".

This amendment inserts a definition of the family to facilitate the inclusion of amendment No. 101, which inserts a new section on the entitlements of a permit holder. Migrant workers make an enormously valuable contribution to our economy. In facilitating a position where family members can join permit holders it is vital that we view such permit holders as more than just a cog in the wheel of an economy. We must see them in the round and recognise the contribution they make. In doing so, we must recognise the needs of individuals to have their families with them. That is the essence of these amendments.

It is important and crucial that permit holders have the same rights and entitlements as members of the host society. Why would they not have the same rights, given that they are playing an equally important role in this economy and society? Central to this issue is the entitlement to the same tax and social benefits which the host community enjoys.

If this amendment is not accepted, the consequence will be that migrant workers may face years of separation from their families, in particular their partners and children, and no Irish person wants to see that happening. It was inflicted on us for long enough, for economic reasons. Family members, often the head of the household as it was termed then, had to go abroad to Britain, the United States or elsewhere and families had to endure years of separation. That is not the humane way of dealing with the issue.

I urge the Minister of State to accept my amendments and the inclusion of a new section on the entitlements of work permit holders. That would move us towards a more humane system of dealing with permit holders.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue was also raised on Committee Stage and it was pointed out then that the matter falls under the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, a commitment was given to state the up-to-date position on Report Stage with regard to current family reunification arrangements.

The Government decided in December 2005 to introduce a new scheme for the admission of family members of work permit holders and working visa or work authorisation holders. For this purpose, family is as defined in the Constitution. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has responsibility for family reunification, announced details of these new arrangements recently.

The family members of work permit holders may be brought into Ireland immediately if the permit holders are from non-visa-required countries. If they are from visa-required countries and their work permit is renewed, their family members can be brought to Ireland after one year or in the case of some highly skilled categories of workers, after three months. Family members can come to Ireland immediately if the work permit holders' income is above the family income supplement eligibility threshold, which is approximately €24,000 per annum, or after three years if the work permit holder is earning less than the supplement level but is in continuing full-time employment. Family members of work permit holders who come to Ireland under these arrangements have access to employment in all sectors, with a labour market test, and the permit is granted free of charge. This allows dependants to contribute towards the financial sustainability of their families.

Family members of persons on working visas or work authorisations may be brought to Ireland after three months and permission to remain is granted for the same period as that for the worker. Under the new arrangements to be implemented after this Bill is passed, green card holders will be permitted to bring their families to Ireland immediately.

Amendment No. 101 deals with family reunification and naturalisation as well as tax and social welfare benefits. These latter issues are covered by legislation in the relevant areas, which it would not be appropriate to address in this Bill.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue was discussed on Committee Stage and the Minister of State said it was a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The issue has caused huge anxieties and problems in the past. I acknowledge that there is no simple solution but we have not done well to date on it. I am not sure that the regulations to which the Minister of State referred and which are now in force meet all the requirements.

Two categories have been created, with one category of green card holders being allowed to have family members brought into the State immediately. The other category of non-green card holders will not have that automatic right of entitlement, particularly those from countries whose nationals require visas to enter this jurisdiction.

All Members have experiences of family members of foreign workers, even those coming on visits to Ireland, being denied visitor and resident visas, even on a short-term basis. If we are to laud the contribution that foreign nationals make to our economy, it is important that they are genuinely welcomed to work in Ireland. A more flexible arrangement is needed to allow for family members to reside for periods to visit and not have an impenetrable barrier put in their way. I commend Deputy Morgan for facilitating the raising of this issue on Report Stage.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is the prospect of some movement on this issue. However, it is most unfortunate that it falls to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Members know his past public pronouncements on how inequality is good for society. He is certainly living up to these because this is a gross inequality and involves a two-tier permit system. There will be those who come to the country on the higher permit who earn in excess of €50,000 per annum. They will be able to bring their families to the country after several months, while those in the other category will be obliged to wait. How can that be reasonable or fair?

If people are coming to Ireland to perform an economic function, why can they not be treated the same? Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his officials responsible for seeking to implement this two-tier permit system? I hope the provision did not emanate from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, particularly as the general thrust of the Bill is sound. This is a fundamental flaw and I am disappointed that it cannot be dealt with now. I am also disappointed that it cannot be resolved to ensure fair play for those people whose contribution will contribute towards our pensions and who will increase capacity within the economy.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All Members are aware of examples of the failure to reunite families and the enormous difficulties created as a result. The scheme introduced by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last December brings clarity to the issue and represents a considerable improvement. The issue will be reviewed again in the immigration and residence Bill. That is the appropriate vehicle to deal with this particular aspect of the issue. In so far as the matter can be dealt with at this stage, I have outlined the proposals contained in the Employment Permits Bill. The difficulties, of which Members are aware from past experience, are being gradually addressed.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State address the issue of people's entitlement to the same tax and social benefits?

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has already spoken twice on the amendment. As we are on Report Stage, he is not entitled to speak again in respect of it.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, line 17, to delete ""non-national"" and substitute ""foreign national"".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, line 18, to delete ""non-national concerned"" and substitute ""foreign national concerned"".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 7, line 8, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, line 16, to delete "non-national's" and substitute "foreign national's".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 7, line 23, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As amendment Nos. 27 and 28 are related, they can be discussed together.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 7, line 27, to delete ""first person"" and substitute "'first person'".

I am proposing these technical amendments on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. I doubt Members will have found the difference to the two, as presented. The inverted commas used were facing upwards rather than down.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 7, line 28, to delete ""second person"" and substitute "'second person'".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 7, line 46, to delete "a non-national or non-nationals employed in the State" and substitute the following:

"a foreign national or foreign nationals employed in the State".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 8, lines 1 and 2, to delete "that non-national or each of those non-nationals" and substitute the following:

"that foreign national or each of those foreign nationals".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 8, line 4, after "force" to insert the following:

", provided that where the second person is a registered employment agency this subsection shall impose obligations on the first mentioned person only to the extent prescribed".

On Committee Stage, the Minister of State undertook to reconsider this amendment dealing with employment agencies. I hope he has been able to further reflect on that debate and is now minded to accept the amendment.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This important point was raised by Deputy Howlin on Committee Stage but it is covered in the Bill. Deputy Howlin was concerned that an employment agency may be an applicant for a work permit. This, however, does not arise because section 1(2) and (3) expressly prohibit an employment agency from applying for an employment permit in respect of a person who would be employed to provide a service or perform work for a third party. Under the provision, if an employment agency has found an employee to work for a particular employer, it is only the employer or the employee who may apply for an employment permit.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 8, to delete lines 5 to 10 and substitute the following:

"3.—Section 2 of the Act of 2003 is further amended—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) by inserting, after "subsection (1) or (2)", "or fails to take the steps specified in subsection (2B)", and

(ii) by inserting, in paragraph (b), after "subsection (2)", "or a failure to take the steps specified in subsection (2B)",

and

(b) in subsection (10), by substituting "foreign national" for "non-national".".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 8, line 12, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 8, to delete line 14.

This amendment was debated on Committee Stage. The intention behind it is to limit an application for a work permit to the employee and to exclude the employer. On Committee Stage, the Minister acknowledged that the Bill's general thrust will be to ensure the work permit will be the property of the employee. In the past, some people were in bonded servitude to an employer who often threatened individuals who refused to comply with unreasonable demands with the withdrawal of accommodation or deportation. Unfortunately, I have personal experience of dealing with such individuals and with rogue employers of that kind. To resolve this problem, the right to make an application for a work permit should rest with the employee only and should not be made by the employer. The Minister of State made a coherent argument on the matter on Committee Stage. It is not that what I suggested is not right, but that it would be unreasonable to exclude entirely any circumstances where an employer might be the applicant. I wonder if there has been further consideration of this matter because I am still minded to push my own amendment which shifts the balance properly in protecting workers' rights. It is a view that is shared by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. From practical experience, I believe it would strengthen the protection of workers and lessen the prospect of exploitation.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment seeks to deal with the issue of bonded labour, which is fundamental as far as my party is concerned. It is a problem at the core of the Bill wherein the permit holder is tied to one employer, even where that employer is exploitative. Unfortunately, it also exposes a two-tier system again because clearly the other category of permit holder is not bonded in this way and is not thus restricted. I acknowledge that there has been an improvement in that at least now the permit holder is supposed to get a copy of the permit. Unfortunately, however, it does not go far enough and that is why this amendment is extremely important.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I certainly understand the background against which Deputies Howlin and Morgan have argued these points. I am not disposed to accepting the amendment, however, because in practical terms it is much easier — and more likely to be successful — to have the employer advertise the job, find the employee and make the application. The safeguard provided addresses their concerns in that the permit is granted to the employee. Therefore, the employee's level of control is far beyond what is currently the case and which gave rise to the concerns expressed by those Deputies and many others. In practical terms, it would be difficult to operate the system if an employee had to be the applicant. That is the principal reason we have a sufficient safeguard. We have provided for an application to be made for the permit in a sensible manner.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not convinced there is an argument in terms of advertising or searching for the job. There is no reason the employer could not still do all of that — place an advertisement, seek an interview system and so on. After the appointment, however, when it comes to the application for a work permit, the idea is that it should be the purview of the employee. It does not impact on the advertising, interviewing and appointment procedure but it is the next phase that I have in mind. I accept that the new regime envisaged in the Bill is an improvement on the old system whereby an employee might never see the work permit. The threat of expulsion from accommodation or from the State was real and it happened in some cases.

I am not convinced by the Minister of State's arguments. It would be a better mechanism if the application, holding and transfer of the work permit resided with the individual employee. Unfortunately, if one allows an either/or strategy, it will be a matter for the employer who will then have leverage over people who are unfamiliar with the law and workers' rights. They may not be members of a trade union and may not be properly briefed so, therefore, they will continue to be exploited in future in ways of which we have seen real and practical examples in the past.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some of the points I wished to raise have been covered by Deputy Howlin so I will not repeat them. Any worker should be entitled to apply for and hold an employment permit. That does not take away from advertising and other issues that do not arise in this respect. The advertising and recruitment process can still occur, after which the worker can apply for a permit. It should be as straightforward as that. I am somewhat concerned by the conservatism in refusing to accept this amendment. I am trying to locate where that conservatism is based but I suspect it does not emanate from the Minister of State himself. Either way, it is unfortunate and unnecessary.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ultimately, the judgment I am making concerns what the most efficient system is. There is a considerable amount of paperwork involved in making an application for a work permit and clearly there are huge advantages for the Department in knowing who the employer is and having that paperwork in as well as the employee's. On balance it seems more sensible and more workable in the vast majority of cases if the employer would be charged with making the application but that the work permit would be issued to the employee. That addresses the major concerns that have come to our notice in recent times. The only good thing to have emerged from recent scandals in this respect is that workers who are foreign nationals have become aware oftheir rights and are much more likely to join a trade union or take whatever other action is needed.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Brendan Daly is one.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are much more responsive as well.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 8, line 14, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 8, line 15, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 8, line 20, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 62, 63 and 90 are related to amendment No. 45 and all may be discussed together.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 8, to delete lines 21 to 25.

These amendments seek to deal with the restrictions the Minister of State is putting on work permits. While sections 3 to 6, inclusive, cover the application either by a prospective employer or a non-national for an employment permit, if an employer is applying he must show the offer of employment with all the terms and conditions of employment under section 5(1)(a). If a non-national is applying he or she must merely show the offer of employment under section 6(f). It is not specifically stated, however, what should be contained in the offer of employment. I am advised that this could be overcome by adopting the provisions of section 3 of the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994.

Section 8 provides that where the employer applies for a permit the period shall be for 12 months or less. Where the prospective non-national employee applies it shall be for a two-year period or for a longer period as provided for under section 13. This might be putting an unnecessary administrative burden on employers who have to apply on a number of occasions. As I discussed on Committee Stage, the amendments seek to tidy up the provisions whereby an unnecessary administrative burden would be placed on those applying for such permits.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The impact of accepting any of these amendments would ultimately be to change the system which is being applied under this legislation. As the Minister has proposed, the work permit application is made on a vacancy-based system. The import of what Deputy Hogan has said would change that, to some extent, towards being a quota-based or points-based system. It would thus lose the major attraction it has for us in view of our experience — that when we know who the employer is, where the employment is and what specific employee is contracted to that job, we have a much better opportunity of following up on any complaints or difficulties that might arise. That is why we have gone for this option.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 8, line 21, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 8, line 26, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 8, line 28, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 8, line 35, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 8, line 38, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 8, line 42, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could all of these amendments be dealt with in one fell swoop?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 9, line 11, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 9, line 17, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 66 and 71 will be discussed together.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 9, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(2) In respect of answers, by a foreign national in an application for an employment permit, given in paragraph (f)(i) of this section, nothing shall automatically disqualify an applicant from gaining an employment in and of itself, but may be taken into account when his or her application is being considered.".

In the interests of speed and brevity I ask the Minister of State to state what he thinks of those amendments before I decide whether I will take action as they were already discussed on Committee Stage.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The powers available to the Minister under section 12(1)(c) to refuse to grant an employment permit for breaches of employment permit legislation or the employment protection enactments in Schedule 1 are discretionary and not mandatory. That is the concern Deputy Hogan had. If breaches occur and such breaches are not serious or of a technical nature, they would not automatically disqualify the applicant from being granted an employment permit. Section 12(1)(c) refers to conviction of an offence, which would not be likely to occur in the case of inadvertent or minor breaches.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In light of the Minister of State's assurance that the ministerial role is discretionary I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 9, line 31, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 9, line 33, to delete "non-national's" and substitute "foreign national's".

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 10, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(2) An employment permit shall, as far as practicable, be issued in, or accompanied by a translation in, the language of the employee.".

We discussed this on Committee Stage. I am sorry not to see the Minister's name appended to mine on this amendment. He undertook to consider it between Committee and Report Stages. It would make it a requirement that employment permits shall "as far as practicable, be issued in, or accompanied by a translation in, the language of the employee". I thought that was a reasonable requirement. Even the census is going out in 11 languages. The saver clause "as far as practicable" meant it would not be overly burdensome but would be an extremely strong safeguard against exploitation and a reasonable undertaking for the State. I take it from the absence of the Minister's co-sponsorship of the amendment that his consideration has not been positive. I wait in hope and expectation on the Minister of State's pronouncement.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As was undertaken on Committee Stage, what Deputy Howlin proposed was considered, and a number of issues arise notwithstanding as he correctly states the phrase "as far as practicable" is included in his amendment. One of the concerns was that should matters of law arise to be determined by the courts, the issue of language would be central to the outcome.

There is also difficulty in that many countries have more than one language, so the language may not be determined from the nationality. When we examined the number of applicants, a considerable number are from countries where English is a spoken language in any event, such as the Philippines, India and South Africa. We do not want to provide translation for some and not for others. On balance, having come from the position of considering it a good idea, it does not seem sensible to provide for it in the legislation. It would be desirable that translations be made available. It does not seem appropriate that it be included as a provision of the legislation.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am disappointed the Minister of State believes that. The notion it might lead to confusion in subsequent litigation is a poor reason for not making good law. We should not look over our shoulders at the courts when we establish law. The idea behind it is to provide clarity to an individual coming here to work on the conditions in a language he or she understands. That is a reasonable expectation and not a great burden to place on this society.

Regarding the confusion that might arise because some countries have more than one language, one could simply ask the applicant to specify which language they wish to use from a list of those available in a practical way. A minor dialect of an obscure language would not be available and it would not be expected. I do not want to take up time if the Minister of State has closed his mind to it. However, providing for language varieties in official documentation would be an incremental positive step in dealing with a multicultural Ireland and its changing ethnicity.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 10, lines 20 and 21, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 10, line 25, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 10, line 27, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 10, line 30, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 81, 125, 145 and 215 are related and will be discussed together.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(6) Where—

(a) the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 become applicable in respect of a foreign national employment permit holder, or

(b) where a foreign national employment permit holder becomes entitled to a contract of indefinite duration, nothing in this Act shall be used to—

(i) deny that employee his or her rights in law,

(ii) deny that employee the renewal of his or her employment permit, if such a denial would interfere with his or her rights in law,

(iii) deny him or her permanency of employment as provided for in section 5 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, or

(iv) afford him or her any lesser protection under employment protection legislation that is afforded to an EU or EEA national.".

As I pointed out on Committee Stage, the one interesting feature of the provisions I outline here is that the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 may become applicable as a permit-holder may be employed on a fixed-term contract. After four years, the employee permit-holder may become entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. Employers will probably not apply for renewal of the work permit of a mere permit-holder and it could be open to abuse.

It would be extremely difficult for people on work permits to be classified as employees and come under the definition of permanent employment, even though they may have contributed to the employment concern for four or more years. Such foreign nationals are at a disadvantage even if they complete a number of years' service. Implicitly it appears foreign nationals do not have the same right to security of employment under employment protection legislation as EU and EEA nationals. For that reason, I put down the amendment to include the changes necessary to provide security of employment or permanent employment status to people who worked for a significant number of years under existing Irish legislation.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I explained on Committee Stage, the provisions of the Redundancy Payment Acts and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act are not applicable in this area.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, will the Minister repeat that?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not applicable in this area. Specifically, regarding amendment No. 81, the arrangement is that workers are allowed to enter and remain in the State for a period no longer than the temporary period specified in the employment permit. That means amendment No. 81 could not be accepted. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 125 and 145 because the mechanism and process of the legislation they refer to are inappropriate for employment permits appeals, for which arrangements have been set out in sections 13 and 17 of the Bill. Neither the rights commissioners nor the Labour Court have any function in the determination of matters relating to immigration. It would be inappropriate to accept the amendments for that reason.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill seems to set up a special system for adjudication of work permits, although tried and tested State machinery for industrial relations already exists. Why not use one of those systems rather than create a new model? If the Minister of State wants to use a system internal to the Department, why not use one of those provided under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2003, with deciding officers, a right of appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and a further appeal on a point of law to the High Court, as exists under the current system? This would prevent unnecessary duplication and expense to the State.

Section 12 provides for a review by the Minister but such a system could lead to numerous judicial reviews or applications which could be costly to the State and any parties to the application. If the Minister of State does not want to use the current structure, he could consider using the adjudication process that exists under the 2003 Act. This involves an initial reference to the rights commissioner followed by an appeal to the Labour Court before going to the High Court on a point of law, which can be quite expensive for all parties. What is the Minister of State's reason for not using a system that has been tried and tested and that works reasonably well?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two different points at issue here. First, immigration arrangements are a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and do not fall within the remit of my Department.

On Committee Stage, the point was strongly made that the functions of employment appeals bodies such as the Labour Relations Commission are specific and could not be related to a review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a permit. Whatever argument might be made for having a mechanism in place, it would be most unhelpful to refer the appeal system to the LRC, for example, which deals with quite different issues. The appeal mechanism is provided for in the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 10, line 39, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 10, line 41, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 10, line 42, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 11, line 2, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 11, line 8, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 11, line 9, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 11, to delete lines 11 to 15 and substitute the following:

"(c) a statement—

(i) of the requirement under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 that the foreign national concerned be paid at least the national minimum hourly rate of pay by his or her employer and the effect of subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section 22, or

(ii) where better terms and conditions of employment in an employment regulation order or registered employment agreement are in effect, of what the applicable terms and conditions of employment for the foreign national are; and".

The wording under section 8(2)(c) provides a statement of the requirement under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 that the foreign nationals concerned should be paid the national minimum hourly rate. I tabled this amendment because the terminology in the Bill could be seen to be restrictive.

There are various registered employment agreements and employment regulation orders under the Industrial Relations Acts that provide greater protection for employees. I hope the Minister of State will consider the amendment, which would provide clarity and remove some of the restrictions in the current arrangement.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot accept the amendment because it would not be feasible to include provision for each type of employment where the applicable terms and conditions are under the relevant employment regulations orders and registered employment agreements. There are 18 employment regulation orders and 45 registered employment agreements, each of which may cover different employment types.

Section 12(1)(j), however, specifically provides that an employment permit application may be refused if the proposed pay is less than the standard remuneration for the working week, which is defined in section 12(6) as being the national minimum wage or the pay set out in the applicable employment regulation order or registered employment agreements. In other words, an employment permit application will be refused if the proposed pay is less than the national minimum wage or the applicable registered employment agreement or employment regulation order. In addition, as section 9 states that the permit must include a statement of the remuneration payable, the employee will know what he or she should be paid.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 11, line 12, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 11, lines 17 and 18, to delete "non-national" and substitute "foreign national".