Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At times such as this, it is only natural and right that we look at our workforce needs and what needs to be done to address any shortfalls in labour availability. Employment permits are an important factor in filling vacancies or meeting employment demands in areas where there are shortages of the necessary skills in our economy. Exceptional circumstances may, therefore, present the idea that it is right and proper that our employment permits legislation be adopted to address these shortcomings.

At the Committee on Public Petitions, we heard of the needs of the hospitality sector. We heard there is an incredible shortfall of staff in the sector. We heard a call to add certain skill sets to the critical skills list in the sector. The discussion dealt with the educational qualifications to become eligible under the list and so on. It displayed for the committee the changing nature of needs within particular sectors and the requirement for further suggestions on how to address legislation that has been described as tired and dated. All perspectives must be listened to and examined for their pros and cons, their potential benefits and pitfalls. While this Bill may be of benefit to the sectors in need of skilled workers, we must ensure it does not come at the cost of the workers' rights.

The Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment has also heard there is evidence to suggest that the employment rights of workers under the permit system, such as levels of pay and conditions of employment, are, in some instances, ignored. There are concerns in this House that the Bill, as it currently stands, is focused solely on increasing flexibility for employers with no attempt to protect workers' rights. Take the suggestion of introducing the seasonal employment permit. I can understand why it is seen as an option but if one looks more closely, there is a lack of detail that the committee has identified. Members raised concerns over the temporary nature of these permits, the protection and enforcement of workers' rights and entitlements, and noted the need for ongoing monitoring of any impact of the permit in depressing wages and to ensure the protection of workers' rights. The committee has suggested that the general employment permit should be adapted to meet the need for seasonal employment. I urge the Department to look again at the committee's recommendations.

The Bill is not all bad. I welcome that it provides for additional conditions for the grant of an employment permit, such as training or accommodation support for migrant workers in some circumstances, or making innovation or upskilling a condition of the grant. We feel the Bill needs additional amendments to make it fit for purpose. It still leaves migrant workers open to serious exploitation. While permits are an important contributor to various sectors, the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Education and Higher and Further Education, Research, Innovation and Science must focus on equipping students with critical skills in areas where we have skills shortages, as well as improving pay and conditions and the attractiveness of the positions.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill is for the exploitation of migrant workers. That is what it is. It is a Bill, therefore, to undermine the rights of all workers. It is a Bill written in the interests of the employers in particular sectors. Evidence of that is contained in the fact that the minimal recommendations made by the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, of which I am a part, which were signed up to by even the Fine Gael members of the committee, have been ignored. Minimal attempts to strengthen basic workers' rights have been ignored yet again by this right-wing Government.

Some of those recommendations included the proposal that workers on general employment permits would have the same rights as workers on critical skills permits and would be allowed the right to gain access to the labour market after two years instead of five years. The recommendations would allow them better rights to family reunion and would allow family members the right to work. The committee also recommended against introducing the proposed new seasonal employment permit. It is obviously intended as a carte blanchefor employers in industries such as hospitality and fruit-picking to treat migrant workers like so much disposable cutlery; tools to be discarded without a second thought at the end of the season.

It is not only People Before Profit that is saying the Minister has ignored workers' rights in this Bill. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions agrees. It says the legislation addresses the needs of employers only, not workers, and has no proposals to enhance workers' rights. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, which represents many migrant workers in this country, also agrees. It says that the committee's recommendations have been entirely ignored, "leaving workers at risk of severe exploitation". The centre stated that this Bill, as it currently stands, is focused solely on increasing flexibility for employers with absolutely no attempt to protect workers' rights. That is the scandal. The centre is absolutely correct. The Bill is about flexibility for employers and has absolutely nothing to defend the rights of migrant workers and all workers in this country.

Particularly cynical is the Department's ongoing refusal to provide anything near the level of resources required for the Workplace Relations Commission to actually enforce workers' rights.

More than 30,000 work permits have been issued so far this year, yet the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, only has approximately 50 inspectors across its entire remit, which is much broader than just dealing with these permits and the rights connected with them. That is a joke on the same level as the three regulators allocated to oversee Anglo Irish Bank and Bank of Ireland combined before the financial crash, or the current risible underresourcing of the Data Protection Commission. They are all systems of State regulation designed to fail so that big business can do whatever it likes and who cares about the consequences for workers or society as a whole. Will the Minister of State at least have the decency to acknowledge that workers’ rights have been disregarded in the drafting of this Bill and that he, his Department and this Government have entirely caved to the demands of employers and employers’ lobbyists on this?

I note several returns in the Register of Lobbying relating to the employment permit system from former Fine Gael Deputy turned lobbyist, Mr. Tom Neville. It seems he has been energetically lobbying his former colleagues in Fine Gael on this, including the Minister of State and another Fine Gael Minister, Deputy McEntee, on behalf of a recruitment agency for non-EEA workers, Workforce Ireland. This latest version of the Bill before us includes provisions enabling recruitment agencies to in effect become sponsors of permits, rather than the actual employer. This reinforces another parasitic layer of exploitation and control of vulnerable workers. Mr. Neville's demands and requests in respect of the Bill cannot be seen in the lobbying register, but perhaps the Minister of State can fill us in on what he and his officials spoke with Tom Neville about on between two and five separate occasions between September and December last year when the general scheme of this Bill was being drafted. Is there any correspondence between the Bill’s favourable provisions for recruitment agencies and the lobbying the Minister of State's former Fine Gael colleague, Tom Neville, on behalf of one such agency? According to the lobbying register, Mr. Neville registered his lobbying firm, Neville International, in September 2020 - it clearly has international ambitions - just seven months after losing his seat in the February 2020 general election. That is a lot less than the one year cooling-off period for relevant designated public officials-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Former Deputy Neville is not here to defend himself, so please refrain from naming him.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. That is a lot less than the one year cooling-off period for relevant designated public officials under the lobbying Act. Of course, Mr. Neville is not covered by that because Deputies are not covered, which again reflects how weak our legislation is regarding the rotating door of people moving from politics to lobbying.

To return to the committee’s recommendations, the fact that even the Minister of State's own party and Government colleagues on the committee endorsed them means these were very minimal asks by the committee. Even then, the Government was not able to accept them. People Before Profit demands much more. We are opposed to the EU’s unjust and racist immigration policies, which the Minister of State, the Government and the Minister of State's European Parliament colleagues have consistently supported. Together with the establishments across Europe, they are responsible for creating and reinforcing a fortress Europe that has caused the deaths of 25,000migrants in the Mediterranean Sea so far, many of them young children. Their only crime was to seek a better life for themselves and their families as generations of Irish people have also been forced to do.

We want nothing less than equal and improved rights for all workers, regardless of nationality or immigration status. Equal pay and conditions for equal work are entirely basic demands. It is an indictment of the capitalist system that we are still fighting for this in 2022 and that it is so generally accepted that migrant workers can be treated as “less than” and discriminated against purely on the basis of their nationality and country of origin. We are opposed to the whole system of employment permits. Tying workers to an employer for any period is a form of bonded labour that leaves them vulnerable to super-exploitation. We will therefore oppose this Bill as it reinforces the State-sanctioned system of worker exploitation, which is what the system of employment permits really is. In doing nothing to improve meaningfully the rights of migrant workers, the Government undermines the rights of the whole working class.

The point is that this is a battle for the entire working class. If we improve the rights of migrant workers and get rid of the super-exploitation that is allowed, that will benefit all workers. When the horrific exploitation of Turkish workers at Gama was exposed and was defeated by an organised struggle and strike led by socialists and the workers themselves, that was a blow for all workers. Similarly, the whole workers' movement needs to stand united against these permits, against this super-exploitation of migrant workers and for workers' rights for all.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When he spoke during this debate on the issue of the need for greater flexibility in the recruitment of bus drivers, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh said that we have to look towards the fishing industry. That statement is incredible, as is the fact that a Government Deputy points towards the fishing industry as an example of anything in this country to do with jobs, recruitment, workers' rights and decent treatment.

I will comment on the review of the atypical work permit scheme for non-EEA fishers that was published last night. Before I do so, let us look at the conditions that have existed under this scheme and the shocking levels of exploitation that took place under it. If these conditions were described as Dickensian, that would probably be an understatement. I recently tabled a parliamentary question for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar, and received a response from him, regarding the issue of contraventions of legal entitlements of migrant fishers since the introduction of that scheme in February 2016. I will read into the record of the Dáil some of the information that was provided to me in the Minister's reply. It is shocking information that includes chilling statistics.

Contravention notices were served on 95 of the 126 vessel owners, in other words, three quarters of the vessel owners in question. Some 392 contraventions were detected by WRC inspectors. I ask Deputies to bear with me as I read out 11 headings under which contraventions took place. Contraventions took place relating to the employment of non-EEA fishers without permission; failure to co-operate with the WRC inspectors; the provision of false information and false documents; failure to pay the legal national minimum wage; the provision of annual leave; denial of public holiday entitlements; unauthorised deductions; failure to keep records; failure to issue payslips; failure to issue contracts of employment; and hours of work and hours of rest.

Despite this - bus drivers beware - Deputy Ó Cathasaigh stated during this debate that in order to have more flexibility in the recruitment of bus drivers, we have to look towards the fishing industry.

My God, does that not say something about this Government and the parties participating in it? Last night, we saw the overdue publication of the review of the atypical work permit scheme for non-EEA fishers. The review essentially calls for the scheme to be effectively wound up. That is positive. I welcome it and it will be welcomed by migrant fishers throughout the country. The review recommends a more advantageous work permit scheme. What that scheme will look like in reality is not yet known as there is a year-long process of engagement to be undertaken. However, it is understood that there will be a pathway towards visa stamp 4, full labour market access and family reunification, if desired. I repeat that I welcome that, as will the fishers. I congratulate the International Transport Workers Federation for its relentless campaigning work in highlighting these issues and in putting the Government and the State under pressure on them. Its work was the key driver of the changes that are about to take place.

There are some weaknesses in this review, however. I will highlight two specific weaknesses. First, there are more than 250 undocumented fishers in this State who fell out of the atypical scheme for any of a number of reasons. The two main reasons were injury and, in some cases, serious injury preventing them from carrying on working as fishers in the industry and people walking away after disputes with exploitative employers who would not pay proper wages or give proper hours or who undertook the other actions I have given examples of. The majority of these more than 250 undocumented fishers were not catered for under the scheme for the undocumented introduced by the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee. They are in limbo and this review does not address their needs. It needs to do so. These are people who have been treated very poorly by their employers when guests of the nation here, as the information I gave earlier indicates. A hand needs to be reached out to these people. They need to be given satisfaction and a decent arrangement needs to be put in place for them.

The second weakness is that the review had an unnecessarily defensive tone to it. For example, dozens of cases of having been trafficked into this country have been reported to An Garda Síochána by non-EEA fishers. The report says that those claims were shown to be without foundation by the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. The DPP never said that those claims were without foundation. That is false. It is a distortion of the reality and the truth. What the DPP said was that there was insufficient evidence. There is a world of difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence, which is what the DPP said, and saying that the reports were found to be without foundation, as is indicated in the report. That should be corrected and officially changed. It is false. While I am at it, the DPP's office has never successively taken a case on the issue of labour exploitation. This is a key reason for this State consistently scoring very poorly, year after year, in international trafficking reports. That needs to be highlighted and I would welcome a change in the position.

I have more or less concluded my remarks. I have two minutes left on the clock. We need an end to what is effectively bonded labour in this State. We need to focus on improving workers' rights and conditions rather than all of the time tweaking things to suit the needs and demands of employers. If bus drivers or any other group of workers are listening to this debate, they should pay attention to the comments of Deputy Ó Cathasaigh because saying that we have to look towards the fishing industry for anything other than an example of the exploitation we need to combat or of how we need to do things very differently is mind-blowing. I will leave it at that.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the expansion of the employment permits system to allow for a growing workforce to be made readily available here in Ireland. I constantly speak to business owners, machinery operators and farmers. The message I have been getting for a long time now is that there is a major shortage of workers for key parts of the economy. I am consistently contacted by employers, particularly in the services and hospitality industry and in agrifood production, who are looking for people to start work. It is a very positive place to be in the sense that we are seeing record levels of employment but many businesses are coming under increased pressure to continue operating with skeleton staffs. A hotel owner I know fairly well has stopped answering the phone at times during the week because the hotel cannot take any more requests for rooms or for tables in the restaurant at night due to the chronic shortage of staff. The teenagers and young adults going back to college really exacerbated the situation and has put pressure on staff numbers in an awful lot of industries.

I want to talk about the red tape and the bureaucracy involved in getting work permits through the system. The bureaucracy involved in the entire employment permits system needs to be removed or drastically reduced. We need to cut away the red tape and the unnecessary delays in getting badly needed workers here. I have been working on employment permit applications with a constituent for a long number of months. Between all of the bureaucracy and the issue being passed from one place to another, we have had to work with four separate Departments to try to get an outcome. While it is one thing to get permits for workers to come to Ireland to work, getting visas approved is another obstacle. All of these processes take time. They are slowing the flow of workers into the country when they are badly needed. All of these processes are frustrating businesses to such an extent that some are now telling me that, if the issues are not resolved in the coming months, they will simply have to cease operations.

I am dealing with a mushroom producer. This industry is facing one issue after another, from the lack of availability of peat to the substantial increases in the cost of energy. The lack of availability of labour is now putting businesses in jeopardy. Some horticultural producers, especially in the mushroom industry, are leaving some of their tunnels idle because of the lack of a workforce. The frustration among business owners is clear as they try to work their way through these processes. There are workers who are ready and willing to come here to start employment and they cannot source employees here. They are not operating at capacity and it is taking months upon months to get the workers here to resolve the issues. For these permits to have the greatest impact, the entire process needs to be streamlined, the bureaucracy removed and faster processing of businesses' applications guaranteed. If this is not achieved, the numbers being approved are just numbers while businesses struggle to operate at a much reduced capacity. It is time for strict timelines to be put in place so that prospective employers applying for a work permit will know they will get an answer within ten, 14 or 21 days or whatever the time limit is. The same should be done for visa applications. There should be strict timelines in place for employers who locate workers and organises the paperwork to get them here to work.

They should know within 21 days or 28 days that these workers will be available to come here to work, whether that is in the hospitality sector, horticulture or wherever. The process needs to be streamlined. It is the same with the dairy industry. There is a severe shortage of labour there as well and there are huge opportunities. I urge the Minister of State to streamline the process.

This Bill is most welcome, but unless we reduce the red tape, employers will just say they cannot put up with the hassle. The delays are completely unacceptable.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. When I worked in the private sector, I had experience of trying to get permits for people coming into this country who were specialised at the time. That is going back a number of years ago. It was an arduous process to get the people we needed to work for us and who were specialised. Every year they had to reapply and we had to prove that they were specialists. It cost a lot of money and involved very uncertain terms and conditions for people because they were only being taken on on a yearly basis. That has probably changed. What I am hearing from industry at the moment, whether about school bus drivers, chefs, general operatives on building sites or production workers on factory floors, every employer I have spoken to has told me it is impossible to get people to work. I was talking to representatives of independent private nursing homes today and they told me that trying to get nursing staff from abroad is very arduous and can cost up to €8,000 per application.

This country effectively has what we call full employment. We have demand for our products because we have a good record of producing good-quality goods and services. We have a fantastic medtech industry, especially around Galway, and the companies involved are crying out for additional workers. The problem they keep repeating is that it is becoming more difficult to get people in because the system is very bureaucratic. It is without timelines and extremely complicated. If we are to try to capture the opportunities that are there in terms of job creation, building economic growth and producing more tax to pay for all the bills we are putting money into the moment, we have to look at the issue of work permits to make it easier for people to get skilled workers into this country. We cannot treat them as something we will only bring in the minute we need them. At this stage, it is a foregone conclusion that we need plenty of workers in this country. When we bring them in, we have to treat them as equals. We have to make sure their personal public service, PPS, identification is done as quickly as possible. I know of a case of a particular business in my own town that took somebody on and they were four weeks waiting for a PPS number so it could not pay the person. That person was living on fresh air while they were waiting for the PPS number to come through. By rights, the person should not have been working because they did not have the PPS number but in order to keep the business going they had to get the work done.

Our systems can become very convoluted and we can create a lot of paperwork in respect of something that is very simple. We should have very clear training and information for employers on how to go about recruiting people and how the State will assist them in applying for the permits, rather than telling them what they have done wrong when they submit something. The communication process around that is very important. Most companies would say that apart from the cost of production, electricity and energy, their biggest issue is trying to keep their workforce going and trying to keep production going at the levels that their orders demand. Manufacturers and suppliers are becoming cagey as to how many orders they will take him because they do not know if they will have the personnel to actually fill these orders. We are losing potential in that. I am sure the Minister of State will take this on board. Having simple and clear processes through which we can get permits for people is important.

I know there are issues around security and identification and who is coming into the country. In the main, the people who are coming here are people who want to work and contribute to society, who will pay their way and pay their taxes. We should be opening our arms to the people who want to do that. They are not coming here on a freebie looking for something from the State. After Covid, a lot of people who came from eastern Europe and worked here went back home and have not come back to us since. That has created a void in the labour market and we have to react to it fairly fast. I hope this Bill will allow us to do that. I hope we are not creating more layers of bureaucracy. The bottom line is that we need to make sure any employer that wants to make an application has a clear pathway by which to do it and that they do it right. They should know what to do rather than taking chances and being told afterwards that they were wrong and they have to do this, that and the other. The communication between the Department and employers needs to be better.

It would be worthwhile to host a number of workshops around the country, through IBEC, to help businesspeople better understand the processes involved. We have to educate the HR fraternity as to how to make these applications and how to make them right so they can get them through faster. It is only reasonable that we think about this in order to make sure we are doing things right. The economy will benefit from it in the long run. The country will benefit from it and every aspect of life will benefit from it. We have a great country. We need to just realise the potential we have in the demand for our products and services. Let us capitalise on that.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I would consider to be a very important Bill. In my years as president of the Irish Road Haulage Association, I saw first-hand how many times the work permit situation caused major problems for companies when it came to hiring staff, particularly heavy goods vehicle, HGV, drivers. If we take the example of a driver from South Africa looking to take up employment in Ireland, one of the first steps would be to verify their licence with the Road Safety Authority. That is before they would even be given a work permit. The process is currently taking about nine months. If a haulage company recruits a driver who wants to come to work in Ireland and contribute to keeping the Irish economy moving smoothly, by the time the company can actually give the go-ahead, the driver will have found work somewhere else, in a country that does not have the same cumbersome system we do. I am not sure if this Bill will help that situation in any way but the Minister of State is aware of the issue now. I have written to him and I received a response only today. I also wrote to the Department of Transport. I was not happy at all with the response I received but we can take that up again.

It is very important that systems run smoothly to deal with genuine people, as my colleague, Deputy Canney, said. Their purpose is to come here to work, to contribute positively to our economy and support their families while supporting our economy and our businesses. There is a problem that exists in abundance in the health service. Every time I have had the opportunity to question HSE officials about the lack of services, a common answer is to point to the issues in recruitment and retention. We need to ask ourselves why we have these issues in recruitment and what steps we are taking to solve those issues. One obvious step is to train enough people here and pay them well enough to stay. We have a ludicrous situation within the HSE whereby we offer up to €4,000 for emigrant Irish nationals to return home and work in the health service.

Why can we not offer the €4,000 to those who are leaving and do exit interviews to ask why they are leaving? Currently, we do not do that.

I could included everything my colleague, Deputy Canney, said in my speech. I could have written his speech. The reality is that every sector and business is finding it difficult to get people to work. I had a call yesterday from a very distressed employer who received eight CVs from Irish citizens. Given the gaps between employments outlined in those CVs, he identified that they were probably from individuals who are on some form of social welfare. He arranged six interviews and not one person turned up. How long are we going to say that we are at full employment in circumstances where people just do not turn up for interviews? Perhaps the people involved got other jobs. I am casting no aspersions. The frustration for the employer is that he cannot afford to operate the permit system apart from the fact that none of the criteria relating to the employment his is offering match the eligibility criteria relating to permits. We must look at where we are going with the economy. We should be training our own people. We have almost €1 billion sitting in the national training fund earning nothing, although it might earn something in the next couple of weeks due to interest rates. The reality is that almost €1 billion is sitting in this fund and employers are still contributing to it. We need to catch up, and I do not mean just with regard to the permits system. We need to catch in the context of the apprenticeship system. We need to train people who will be actively available to us on our own soil and who are prepared to live here.

Work permits are arduous. They cost a lot of money. They are given for a year or for a maximum of two years in some cases. The eligibility criteria relate to every sector. We cannot depend on the lists available to us. I will talk about what I know, namely, HGV drivers. We can choose drivers from four countries, three of which make no sense - Japan, South Korea and Australia. If we could pay what the Australians pay their drivers, we would be doing very well. I doubt they will come here to work for us. In the same vein, Japan and South Korea are not really the recruitment areas we are looking for. The Minister of State has been asked to expand it to the Philippines and Argentina because we have been at it for some years in South Africa and that market is almost exhausted. The reality is that when you look at what we are hearing today from the National Car Testing Service in the context of having cars tested for roadworthiness, it is able to bring workers from Spain and the Philippines. We need to go and market Ireland as a place to come and work.

The other significant factor in attracting people is having houses for them to live in. We are really behind on two counts. We are at full employment but are doing nothing to further attract employees. We have not broadened the eligibility criteria and the sectors that are eligible to come into the work permits scheme and we are not building houses for them to live in when they do get here. I would be pretty concerned as to how the economy is going to function without a workforce in the same way as I am concerned about small and medium enterprises that are receiving CVs and making arrangements for interviews but are getting nothing back or having invitations for interviews accepted and then nobody turns up. How are we policing our own social welfare system? If we are saying that every sector needs employees, the reality is that we must work together. If we are at full employment, we cannot wait. We must do it now.

All sectors say that the system is too slow. I wrote to the Minister of State about a migrant worker who was here as an asylum seeker. She was based in Offaly and got a job in a nursing home in Wexford. She took two buses to get to that job and there was one simple request. The request was that international protection accommodation services, IPAS, would find accommodation in Wexford in order that she could continue in employment. No effort, and I mean no effort, was made to that so not only are we accommodating people in a way that is costing the economy money, we are not prepared to accommodate the businesses that can offer them jobs. That is the issue. I cannot understand how we do not make every effort to allow these people to avail of our jobs and us to avail of their employment. It makes no sense. I have heard nothing from the Minister of State in that regard.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was not me.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well I wrote to three Departments and heard nothing back. It is just not good enough.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy did not write to me.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is still not good enough one way or the other.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will check that.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I wrote to the Department. It may not have been to the Minister of State.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy might correct that.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that, but because it is a work permits scenario-----

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no problem checking, but could the Deputy please correct the record? She did not write to me. I will check the issue for her.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did say that the Minister of State answered me regarding one issue. I received a reply from him this morning. I will correct the record regarding the other matter. I may not have written to his Department.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will check the matter for the Deputy in any event.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regardless of whether I wrote to the Minister of State, the situation has not changed. It is a ridiculous scenario. Inevitably, this nurse had to give up the job in Wexford. There was no job available to her that she could reach by means of public transport in Offaly, which is a sad state of affairs. We are not prepared to accommodate those who are here but we are prepared to give work permits to those who are not here. The system is not working. I ask that we concentrate on making jobs and permits available and assisting those who are here.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reiterate what the previous speaker said, namely, that we need to do an awful lot more in terms of people who are qualified to take up vacant posts in our country and who are living here regardless of whether they are asylum seekers or something else. If they are at all suitable and the need is there and if it is an unmet need in local employment terms, we should make sure those people can get their permits and work here.

I welcome the excellent job the Minister of State is doing, the changes he is making and the changes he proposes to make. Time and again in my office and, I am sure, in the Minister of State's office, we see families qualified for home care help. The money is available. There is no issue providing money for home care, but there is nobody to do the work. As a result, a person who has significant unmet medical needs, who wants to live at home and whose family wants them to live at home ends up in a nursing home. There are many people who either do not need or do not want to be in nursing homes. Home care is the direction in which this society is moving. I met representatives from Home Instead recently. They informed me about something like 6,000 vacancies nationally for home carers, which is a huge number.

We saw the controversy about the Ukrainians and the asylum seekers in Killarney. I agree with the Government opting to reverse the decision to move those mothers and children out and put men in their place. The latter just did not make sense. I wonder how many of those men would be suited to, capable of and want to fill the vacancies that are there. In response to a question from Deputy Shortall in May, the Minister of State indicated that he had removed a number of healthcare occupations from the ineligible occupation list. I did not hear him speak because I was elsewhere. I know it is his intention - if it has not already happened - to lift the ban on other people coming in. As our country changes, we must grasp the opportunities that exist. If people are here and are capable of and want to do the work, we must let them. This is the core of it.

The other point is that we must pay people for the work they do. Looking at all the media coverage and reports regarding the appalling incidence of Covid and the thousands of people who died here - hundreds of thousands died around the world - people gave their lives. Some home care assistants and healthcare workers died serving and looking after those people. If we had sufficient and adequate home care, many of those people might not have ended up in the places they were in.

The evidence is clear that people who lived and were looked after in their homes generally had a better health outcome than those who died in nursing homes and other institutions.

It is strong and it needs to happen. The vacancies are there. We need to pay them appropriately but let us make sure asylum seekers who fit the bill can get jobs and our residents, particularly older people, can stay in their homes and be looked after for a longer period of time.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is difficult to disagree with many of the points made by speakers across the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Yesterday I chaired an important meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Climate Action. Senior officials from the SEAI were at the committee to discuss the progress they are making and the challenges they face in carrying out their ambitious task of overseeing the upgrading of 500,000 homes to B2 standard by 2030. The policy and plan are clear and SEAI is moving strongly in the right direction, but the officials pointed out their ability to deliver was somewhat constrained by the fact that our economy is at full employment and the labour market faces shortages. I do not want to single out SEAI because this challenge faces all sectors, not just the retrofitting sector.

As a Government and Oireachtas we have set ourselves the monumental task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, based on 2018 levels. I will not say it is easy to set targets, but it is certainly more difficult to plot the path to achieving them and more difficult still to stay on that path.

The offshore wind challenge vies with the retrofitting one as being the largest infrastructure project in the history of the State. We have brought in special framework legislation and set up new State agencies to oversee Ireland becoming a net exporter of energy. That will be a total change from our current status, where we import more than 90% of our total energy. We will need thousands of planners, ecologists, engineers, technologists, administration staff and human resources personnel for his sector. We need to train our citizens and develop a workforce that matches the needs of our rapidly changing economy and society but, being at full employment, we have to look overseas and enable the people with the skills we need to come here and help us achieve our critically important objective. The skills we need are in short supply across Europe because we are not the only ones embarking on a radical and necessary transition.

We have to be creative in how we attract people to this country. Ireland is an attractive country to come to for many reasons. I do not need to go into those because we are well aware of them. However, we have to remove the unnecessary barriers. I will not repeat the points that have been ably made by colleagues across the House but I do not think it has been mentioned that it is not as simple as inviting people over and giving them work visas. New workers will bring new families and they have a major demographic impact. In the last five years, the population of Ireland has increased by about 10%, and that is beyond the projected increases of Project Ireland 2040, the national planning framework. It has put immense pressure on our ability to house people and provide adequate health, education, childcare, public transport and other services. These new people coming to Ireland will put further pressure on those services, which are at breaking point.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. We have a huge issue. We are known as Ireland of the thousand welcomes or céad míle fáilte and we just welcomed visitors from the Gambian Parliament here a few minutes ago but we have a huge problem with delays in employment permits. I do not understand the reasons. We never get the reasons. I know of one person who has worked here, has a partner here and wants to come here to work, and it is going on for nearly four years. That partner is a brilliant, hard-working, dedicated man and he has come to the conclusion that he will try to reverse and go the other way. He is a skilled HGV driver who works 19 or 20 hours per day in the milk season and will be a huge loss to his employer, community and, above all, his elderly mother, family and friends. It is a huge change for him to move so far from his native shore.

I have come from a committee where we discussed the hospitality industry. I condemn out of hand any practices whereby workers who come here work extortionate hours and do not get proper rates of pay. We must not have any truck with that. We have to have checks and balances but the hospitality industry is on its knees. They tell us we are at full employment. I do not believe we are but those are the statistics regurgitated out to us every day. It is difficult to know.

That industry has been lobbying the Minister of State and us. I heard criticism earlier of a former colleague of the Minister of State who has become a lobbyist. There should be some distance from Members of this House as well as the public service, including county councillors and senior officials. When they leave, there should be time before they take up any lobbying position.

Everyone knows about the hospitality industry but we must also deal with the extortionate rates that industry is charging in Dublin because it is damaging the brand of Ireland of a thousand welcomes and the work of Fáilte Ireland and all the good people in tourism. My good colleague, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, will not be happy with me but there are one or two, I believe, in Kerry as well that have huge rates. It is giving a bad name to the whole brand. In New York, they had a special rate for hotels compared to the rest of the country. I believe we will have to do the same here.

Getting back to the issue at hand, farm and forestry contractors of Ireland are crying out for labour, as are the building industry and many industries, including horticulture and the poultry and pig sectors. It is difficult and arduous for permits to be got. The vast majority of employers are good, caring and responsible and they respect the workers. While there is always one or two, that happens in every walk of life, unfortunately. We must do something to make it easier.

I am not saying we should have no checks and balances and let anybody and everybody in here. I have a concern about the influx of people. We saw the saga in Killarney and I am glad that is reversed for the moment. I heard one of the Ukrainians this morning, a lady, who was delighted she was not moving that distance but she did not know where she was sleeping tonight. That will resolve itself, I hope. Apparently it is because one of the companies in Mayo will not take international refugees while they will take Ukrainians. Are we picking and choosing?

I was contacted during the week by a gentleman who said he had 3,500 places for Ukrainian people fleeing the war and was in a logjam. I was contacted by one of the people in the chain of supplies he has. I can give the Minister of State details. It was an-chara liom in Tipperary town, a gentleman I will not name. He has had his premises kitted out at a fair amount of expense, is ready and waiting and has not heard a dickeybird, níl aon pingin amháin, and has not had a penny. He entered into this in good faith to deal with the situation, as the Government had asked, and did up his premises, but he has not seen anybody come and has no idea. I am alarmed to think a company, or a man, a gentleman or whatever- I did not speak to him; it was my office - has 3,500 places in the middle of a housing crisis for so many people. I do not know what is going on. I am bewildered as to how this is happening but if that man is a co-ordinator or whatever we call him and can pick up those kind of places, how come the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Minister of State, who is in that section as well, cannot get their hands on these places? There is something wrong. Is the money so lucrative for the other? There are question marks. We need to deal with it but we need to be sensitive and to understand contractors are in a bad way for staff. Many contractors have been forced out of business this year - I know a half dozen in south Tipperary - because of the price of fuel, the cost of insurance and the lack of support.

Yet for some reason the Minister has refused to meet the farm contractors of Ireland. I appeal to the Minister of State to be more understanding and sensitive.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to get an opportunity to talk on this topic as many employers across the county of Kerry have been asking me to help them to get people to work for them. Work permits come up all the time. Last week, a plaster was on to me looking to get a plasterer in from another country. He has been held up all year. He went through all the hoops. He had to advertise in the local paper and had to do so a second time. He had to contact social welfare in writing so many times. It costs more than €2,000. The system needs to be streamlined. In these scenarios, whether it is a worker in construction, hospitality or farming or drivers, excavator drivers or lorry drivers, they can have all the accreditations, tickets and so on but you do not really know until they arrive whether they are suitable or not and whether they will they work out. There should be some sort of a temporary certificate or permit that you could get for three months or so to see how they work out. After all, it costs more than €2,000 and takes an awful lot of work. There are about four Departments involved with which you have to make contact to get a person through. At different times over the last couple of weeks, I have raised the possibility of training Ukrainian women to do home help. We have a dire need for home help workers in Kerry. Elderly people have been allocated so many home help hours by the HSE but no one turns up because we are told it does not have the staff. It would be ideal if those women could be trained, including those who have cars and those who have English. They have to be English speaking to deal with elderly people.

The system we have is too intricate for small employers. It may be all right for professionals, doctors and so on, their CVs will stand for themselves, but it is not enough if you employ a driver who will say he drove this and that. He may have tickets for it but when he arrives he may not be able to drive a pram. The €2,000 cost and the amount of red tape involved is too much for many of the people I have talked about. I ask the Minister of State to streamline it in some way so that it would be possible to get in workers on a temporary basis.

The story in Killarney has been mention where 193 asylum seekers arrived a number of days ago. They arrive at the Quality Hotel on the Park Road in Killarney where there was already 135 Ukrainian women and their children, many of whom had settled and integrated into the town. They were working in hotels and the children had been bought school uniforms and were at school but they were given 48 hours to leave the hotel and go to Westport. We saw the Government at its best, playing politics with these poor people in this unfortunate situation. The Government accepted the 193 men and directed them to the Quality Hotel in Killarney where there was already 134 women and children. Then we had Deputy Griffin, the deputy Government Chief Whip, challenging the Government of which he himself is part for bringing them to Killarney. Last evening, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, said there was no going back and that the Ukrainian women and children would have to leave Killarney and go to Westport even though the children had got their school uniforms and were integrated into the community. Then this morning, some time after 10 a.m., the Minister, Deputy Foley, announced that she had got the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, to allow the Ukrainian women to remain in Killarney even though I was made aware at 3 p.m. yesterday that they would be allowed to remain there. The Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, said yesterday evening that there was no going back but then the Minister, Deputy Foley, came out this morning with an announcement, saying she was a great woman and had it all sorted out. However the locals-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is eight minutes left and there are another two speakers.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Right.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Collins is next.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The explanatory memorandum states that: "The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate and update the legislative provisions that regulate the Employment Permits system, namely the Employment Permits Acts of 2003 and 2006". I want to take the opportunity to thank the staff in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I do not want to single out anyone but there is one specific lady who is outstanding in her job and bends over backwards in every way, shape and form to help us get permits for doctors, chefs and many others. That lady is more than willing to help with any work permit that we have to make representations on. Sometimes we forget to thank people who work in the Departments. We maybe critical but you should call a spade a spade too.

At the moment, I am dealing with a doctor in west Cork. It is very annoying. He has been working in Ireland for more than five weeks but he cannot get a PPS number. While I am making representations for him, I find it hard to believe that in these times of technology and fast turnaround times that it can take so long to get a doctor a PPS number. The man needs to get paid and without this number, he cannot be paid. He feels his hands are tied and that if he does not get his PPS number soon, he will have to go back to his own country. It is hard to believe when we can give out PPS numbers to people fleeing war-torn countries with no identification that we are having trouble getting a PPS number for a doctor.

I know of another lady in west Cork who came here on a stamp zero. She is a grandmother. Her daughter came to Ireland years ago. She married an Irish man and had children. The grandmother has no brothers or sisters and no other family member in the country she is from. She only has her daughter, her son-in-law and her grandchild in Ireland. The problem is that when the family originally applied for her to come here, they had plenty of money themselves. Now, because of Covid and other factors, they do not have the same amount of money available to them. They are being told that this poor lady, the grandmother, may have to go back to the country she came from where she has no family. Her family is here and she should be able to stay at least on compassionate grounds. There are a lot of issues like that where small frivolous reasons mean a person has to return even though they may be elderly and their nearest relatives are in Ireland.

There is also another man in west Cork who came to Ireland to work. He was working for an employer who applied for a work permit but he did not like the job. That can happen. He is a human being. When you apply for a job, you might not fall in love with it when you get it. He has the opportunity to move to another job. That should be facilitated in some way. I know it is difficult to strike a fair balance but unfortunately he was not allowed to do so. I know of a restaurant in west Cork, which is waiting for work permits for two chefs but the hoops they have to jump through are enormous and the waiting period before they can apply is ridiculous. I appreciate that we get a lot of help through the Minister of State's office to sort out a lot of issues. This is a huge issue in west Cork, especially during the tourism season. I look forward to working with the Minister of State to make sure these people get the opportunity to stay.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The labour supply is a huge issue in the agricultural and equine sectors. The pig and dairy industry are heavily reliant on labour. That is especially so in spring for dairy and throughout the year in the pig industry. Work permits are critical to the survival of the industry and also for the mental health of farmers who are trying desperately to keep in line with climate change and ensure the viability of their farms and piggeries.

I cannot stress enough the urgency of addressing the labour shortage. Does the Minister of State have any idea of the cumbersomeness and clunky nature of the process of applying for work permits for farm workers? A non-refundable charge of €1,000 is payable upfront and several advertisements must also be published in the local newspapers. Accommodation must also be provided to give a net income of €30,000. Shortages of labour for next spring stand at 500. This is not just about having an extra pair of hands but the survival of farms. In addition, there are continued charges to the immigration department.

Equally, it seems farmers must pay higher wages than the meat industry. That industry pays €22,000 annually for non-EU workers, while the farming industry pays €30,000, and more if farmers are using an agency. If the dairy, pig and equine sectors are to continue to expand and to contribute to the rural economy, someone will have to take charge and get this process up and running. Otherwise, there will be severe consequences. Examples would include impacts in the areas of the mental health of farm families and animal welfare. The equine industry is at its wits' end trying to get workers. It seems the most appropriate location for advertisements for roles in that industry isThe Irish Field, which is not considered to be an Irish publication and, therefore, cannot be used for the placing of advertisements. Could this application process be made any more difficult?

Currently, 2,181 applicants are waiting for permits. This covers the farming and pig industry, as I said, as well as the hospitality, haulage and construction sectors. I reiterate that 2,181 people are waiting for permits. Yet people are arriving here with no paperwork, because of the circumstances they are coming from, and we are providing them with refuge, which this is 100% right. Last week, I raised the issue of a large influx of men being brought into a town near us where women and children were already being housed. The same thing has now happened in Killarney. The Government has had to reverse this proposed action. Therefore, the Government did not learn from the issue I brought up last week and this has now happened again in Killarney. A total of 195 males were coming to that town. The Government was going to move the women and children out of a hotel. Again, there must be a small bit of cop-on.

The Government is not learning from its mistakes. It is not listening to the people on the ground. I have been in construction all my life and thank God I still am. Hopefully, my family will be able to continue in the business in future. Many people here who are in the farming sector and other sectors might not be as lucky because of the difficulty of being able to get people to help on farms and elsewhere. Why is this? Every time there is a change of Government, the regulations change for farming. It does not matter if we are talking about pig, dairy or beef farmers. The regulations change. These are the only sectors where the regulations are changed every few years by a city-led Government which has no understanding of rural living. The members of the Government understand it when they are sitting around the table and eating. They understand it when they go into a hotel and buy food but they have no understanding of how the food gets there. Therefore, this industry suffers every time under new Governments. This must change, as must city-based Governments and Cabinets.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having 258,000 more people at work than before Covid-19 struck is an extraordinary achievement by the Government. This has brought prosperity to every region. We have record levels of work permits being issued and record levels of inward migration, with 92,000 people, gross, last year, or a net 60,000. The Minister and his Department have handled that huge surge well, despite the emerging pressures.

We must, however, take a more strategic approach to managing migration. I say this based, essentially, on two grounds. First, as a mature, high-value economy, we want to ensure high standards of workers' rights. In that regard, we are bringing in measures such as auto-enrolment, parental leave, sick pay, a living wage and remote working entitlements. This means we are strengthening the position of workers, as we should do. It also means, of course, that we should take the same attitude towards migrant workers and ensure they also enjoy good working conditions. I worry that the way in which our system has grown in recent years means it has tended to treat migrant workers in ways that are quite discriminatory. We have not given those who are approved for general work applications the same rights to move away from their first employer and to work with others. We have also not given those workers the same rights for their families to join them. I point this aspect out because, by and large, these are people who are making a long-term commitment to Ireland to work in sectors like farming and healthcare. We must move away from issuing permits linked to employers in this rigid way and give people who have come here and who are accepted better access to the labour market, faster family permits and more support to ensure they are properly integrated.

Second, we are facing severe infrastructural deficits. We run the risk that reactionary political pressures will grow in respect of the rightful decisions we are taking to accommodate people fleeing violence in Ukraine and to accommodate the growing needs in this regard. We must, therefore, ensure that our approach focuses on infrastructural deficits. I fear some sectors are continuing to rely on migrant workers when they should have moved to develop the sort of apprenticeship and training models that would give them permanent support within their own sectors rather than continuing to depend on migration. We must focus the contributions of migrant workers in areas where we face particular challenges, such as in retrofitting and in building to address the housing crisis. Equally, this must also happen in the sectors identified by the high-level group on skills: artificial intelligence design, zero carbon housing, etc. These are very important. Therefore, we must move to a more strategic approach in this area. It must be one that looks beyond narrow supply and demand factors and considers the wider economic context to ensure we protect the sustainability of our economy.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this important Bill and I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing it before the House. Over the last year, I have made many representations to him and his team in the Department on behalf of employers concerning employment permits. This legislation is before us because of the Minister of State's determination to modernise the system. This includes not only reforming it but also streamlining the process, which is welcome. In fairness to the Minister of State and his Department, turnaround times for processing applications have reduced in recent months. This is significant, especially when the number of applications in hand has increased by 50%.

Many employers, however, still find the process of applying for work permits frustrating, with applications taking far too long to process. As part of the reforms being introduced, I ask the Minister of State to establish a new website, similar to one deployed by the Passport Office, where applicants can monitor the progress of their applications. I strongly believe that posting videos on such a website to advise people on how to apply for work permits and identifying the common issues which lead to unsuccessful applications would be advantageous. Employers who contact me often complain they cannot get any feedback from officials once an application is lodged. This must also change.

I looked at the critical skills occupation list and the list of ineligible occupations and I will give one example in this regard. The Clare Youth Service contacted me this week. It wishes to employ a person and it has advertised the post for the last several months. It cannot get anyone. Youth and community work, however, is on the ineligible list of occupations and, therefore, it is not possible to secure a work permit for someone to undertake this role. I ask the Minister of State to examine this issue.

Colm Burke (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill.

It is extremely timely. In particular when there is a significant growth in jobs in this country, it is important that we have people who are able to fill the jobs. An amazing change has occurred in the past ten years in terms of the unemployment levels coming down and employers now finding that there is a shortage of workers, and therefore we must respond accordingly. It is important as well that we provide protection for people who were born here, who have gone through the education process and who have qualifications. It is appropriate that the Bill provides full protection for Irish people in the jobs market as well, and that people are not exploited. There is an interesting change in the Central Statistics Office, CSO, figures, which show that more than 700,000 people are living in this country who were not born here. That is a big change.

Regarding permits, it is important that there is flexibility as well. I have come across a number of people who have come here on a work permit, who have gone back to further education and got additional qualifications but they find it difficult to move on to jobs that are vacant that they want to fill. There are many difficulties with that. We must have flexibility with work permits to ensure mechanisms are in place to accommodate people who have made the effort to further advance their situation and in order that we can protect people.

One issue I wish to raise concerns agency contracts. It is important that we do not have any abuse or misuse of that system. While we need flexibility, it is important that we have protection for workers at all times. It is extremely important that we do not have a scenario where a lot of money is being paid to agencies for people to be able to get employment and then deductions are made from the workers. It is important also that we provide safety mechanisms and protection, even if we do allow some change in how agencies bring people here.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with some of the previous speakers from Fine Gael, in particular Deputies Colm Burke and Bruton. Given that Deputy Bruton was a Minister in the Department I urge the Minister of State to listen carefully to what he had to say. We are introducing seasonal work permits. People are coming here to pick a commodity but we must be very careful that they do not become a commodity or that they are not treated like a commodity because they are human beings with inalienable rights. According to the Judaeo-Christian philosophy behind the Constitution, they are made in the image and likeness of God, but that is certainly not how they are treated by Irish bureaucracy and Departments. While I very much welcome Deputy Bruton’s presence during the debate and his contribution, I am disappointed that neither the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy James Browne, nor the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, is present because there is a significant disconnect between the employment permit regime, as good or bad as it is and how the Department of Justice treats this issue. I acknowledge that there have been improvements in the operation of the employment permit scheme in the past 12 months, in particular with the reactivation of the employment permit scheme, which is very important. However, there is a disconnect between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Justice. I want to give a couple of examples in the time available to me.

A number of criteria must be examined when the Minister for Justice is determining whether to issue a deportation order in respect to somebody who is here unlawfully. One of the criteria we look at when determining whether it is in the best interests of the State to deport somebody is his or her employment prospects. I have seen numerous decisions as a practitioner in the area of immigration where it was said that their employment prospects were poor because it is not lawful for them to work. Of course their lawful employment prospects were poor if they could not lawfully work, but that is an incredibly circular argument. It is one on which there is a certain divergence of case law in the courts. A policy must be put in place to deal with the matter. In a country of full employment, where somebody has demonstrated that he or she has offers of employment, how can an official in the Department of Justice say a person’s employment prospects are poor because he or she cannot work in circumstances where the person has offers of work if the person could lawfully work? It is not a criticism of the individual who is doing his or her job. He or she is applying a version of the law but it seems to be State policy. Even in a case where a person might have five different offers of work, often a deportation order is made in respect of the person. I am not saying deportation orders do not have to be made in certain instances. There are other criteria, as there should be, in determining whether a deportation order is made, but the sort of bland assertion that the employment prospects of anybody who is not here lawfully are poor is contrary to common sense at a time of full employment when we have heard numerous examples across the floor where people simply cannot get somebody to work. That is something that must be examined.

A person’s good character is looked at in a citizenship application. In the case of Martins v. the Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Justice David Keane found that the fact somebody had worked unlawfully led to him deciding that he was of bad character. The person was here for several years and had a PPS number. He paid tax throughout his life in Ireland. The decision was based on the fact that the person was breaking the law of the State. I want to be very clear that this is not a criticism of Mr. Justice Keane’s judgment in any way. The judge is there to determine what the law of the land is and to apply it. If we do not like the law of the land, then it is our job to change it. Mr. Martins came here as a minor to join his parents who had a work permit. He entered employment and worked for a very long period but was found to be of bad character because he was working unlawfully in the State. There was very little prospect for him to work lawfully in the State or to apply for a permit because, generally, once a person is unlawfully in the State, whether he or she comes on a tourist visa or otherwise, one cannot apply for an employment permit. I understand the reasons the Department of Justice does not want that, although the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment might be less concerned as it is not within the Department’s remit. The Department does not want to incentivise people to come here and then apply, it wants people to arrive at the frontiers of the State with an employment permit. Even at that, there are cases currently before the courts where the Department has granted an employment permit for somebody on the basis of the need for workers in a particular area, and it is happy a person has fulfilled the criteria for working in the area, but when a person applies for a visa to come to the State because he or she is not from a visa-exempt country, the Department of Justice states it does not believe the person has the skills necessary to fill the job. I do not know what training and skills the officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment have in determining first, that there is a necessity to bring in employees in a particular area or somebody’s suitability for a job, but whatever training they have to so do, I would have thought it was closer to the central remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, rather than the Department of Justice, yet the latter can turn around and say that it is interesting that a person has an employment permit but it does not think the person fulfils the criteria and he or she will not be given a visa. The employer and the employee have gone through the rigmarole of getting the work permit, only for someone in the Department of Justice to say he or she does not think the person is suitably qualified.

There is always going to be a degree of subjectivity, but how suitably qualified does a person have to be? In a time of critical need and shortages in the workforce, I am sure employers are employing people they wish were a little better qualified. They might have some qualifications and be able to be trained up but it seems the Department of Justice does not like that approach. That has also been challenged before the courts and upheld in a number of judgments because the courts, including under Mr. Justice David Keane and in more recent cases, have found that two completely different statutory regimes are in place and that it is for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to determine the work permit issue and for the Department of Justice to determine the other one. There have been judgments suggesting that if the Legislature does not like that, it can, of course, amend that.

I do not like that idea; it is incredibly bureaucratic and it is a huge waste of resources in both Departments. Perhaps more important, it is a waste of the resources in that potential employee's life and in his or her employer's life because, as far as they are both concerned, one of them is going to work and the other has a worker and then suddenly they are told that is not the case. I ask the Minister of State to consider this. I appreciate he cannot bring in legislation amending something within the remit of the Department of Justice but he might pick up the phone and see whether all these anomalies can be sorted out because they are a blockage.

Moreover, we have a big problem attracting foreign doctors. I appreciate that the Minister for Health has done something about this, given they could not get on trainee schemes because they were not from Ireland or even the European Economic Area, so they did not qualify for training schemes to advance their careers. Generally, there is a predictable career progression for doctors and they want to stay on that path so, naturally, they do not stay in Ireland. That is being sorted out but there is also the issue of their family members. I recall when I was previously a Deputy, between 2011 and 2016, dealing with the case of a doctor who eventually asked why on Earth he would stay here with this nonsense and try to get his wife and children in here while he was working in our quite crappy healthcare system. He admitted he might be getting well paid for it but he had no prospects of career advancement, he could not get his family here and he could not advance his life.

This is with regard not just to doctors but to any worker who comes here. People are more than workers; they are human beings with a life and we need to acknowledge that. People's life circumstances change. How many Irish people have left Ireland to go on holidays and ended up happily married in another country, with a life, years thereafter? Likewise, how many people have come to Ireland and ended up married, with a life, years thereafter? Some, however, have a very different life from that of others, and that is largely determined by an accident of birth. If they were born in the European Economic Area or they hold a purple passport, they will get on fine. If they are American, we will generally treat them okay because we would like the US to treat us okay, but if they are Asian, South American or African, the hurdles they will encounter as they try to develop a life here are a different story. They are all human beings who deserve the opportunity. They are not commodities, even if they might be here to pick a commodity in the case of seasonal workers.

I am concerned about the seasonal workers aspect of the legislation, which needs to be teased out more. There is already a differentiation between general work permit holders and critical skills work permit holders in the right to bring in family members and I wonder how justifiable that is. Would it be found to be discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights? I do not know. It might not be; who knows? In any event, I do not think that discrimination should exist. Are we to introduce a further tier of discrimination? If a seasonal worker here ends up overstaying his or her permit - I presume a person’s visa will be linked to his or her permit - will he or she be able to avail of the reactivation scheme, which I have welcomed for specific reasons I will come to presently? Will such a seasonal worker be able to avail, or apply for, a general work permit while being a seasonal worker or thereafter? These are important considerations. It seems to be fundamentally wrong to bring somebody across the world and into the State and then to say they are just here to pick apples. I have been talking about fruit workers, although there is not a huge horticultural sector in Ireland. Nevertheless, it came very much to the fore earlier during Covid, when there was general uproar that people would be coming here to pick fruit for us to eat. I just never understood it. The people who brought them in, rather than allow the fruit to rot into the ground, were vilified in the media and in certain sections of this Parliament, and to this day I do not understand that. Seasonal workers are not just people who will pick fruit; it is far broader than that.

Each and every one of them is a human being. Life goes on for all of them, as it does for us, and we cannot deprive people of the opportunity to move forward and develop a life. Sometimes within the Department of Justice there is almost a paranoia whereby before we know it, these people will be having kids and will have a right to stay under the Zambrano case or something like that, but people move on with their lives and have children and our laws need to acknowledge and facilitate that, rather than, as some are prone to do, cast them into the shadows of society. Doing that is dangerous and I do not think is not beneficial. From a societal perspective, it is damaging, but also from an economic perspective. People who want to work should be allowed to do so, people with something to contribute to our society should be able to do so and people who have something to contribute to our economy should be able to do that.

Even so, the system has improved, not least with the reactivation scheme. I recall asking the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, a parliamentary question once about an issue in my constituency. Deputy Carey was in the Chamber earlier and he, like me, will be aware there is a large Brazilian community in Gort. Most of them came here to work in a meat plant, the meat plant shut and many of them found themselves in precarious, if not unlawful, employment. Many of them are renowned for how hard they work, yet some of them are horrendously exploited, including by farmers, I might add as a farmer from Clare who, in the long-distant past, has sometimes employed them. It is next to impossible to get workers as a farmer but I paid them, which was the least I could do after the work they did, even if it was not for very much. It is common for farmers to have to resort to that, although the phrase "have to resort" makes it sound as though farmers are almost dirtying themselves by giving work to people who want to work, but that is not how it should be. In any event, there was a firm that wanted to employ people and because these workers were already in Ireland, some of them for most of their adult lives, it could not employ them. They did not hold work permits at the time and were not lawfully in the State, even though they had been here for most of their adult lives. At least the reactivation scheme goes some way in that regard because, where such workers have ever held a valid work permit, it seems that if they apply under the reactivation scheme, they can have it reactivated. I welcome that, but we need to be clear that other categories, and at the very least seasonal workers, will be able to avail of it. If not, what we are doing, I regret to say, is just treating them in the same way as the commodity they are here to harvest, and that is unacceptable, although I do not want to be negative and I acknowledge the advances that have been made.

When we talk about exploitation, the Covid pandemic shone a light into many crevices in Irish society, one of which related to the exploitation of people who hold a work permit tied to their employer, in particular in the meat sector. I am sure the phenomenon of a person being exploited because his or her work permit is tied to a particular employer is not unique to the meat sector but it certainly became very apparent there, as did the appalling work conditions of some of those workers as well as their appalling living conditions. For many of them, it was all perfectly lawful because they were agency workers. Like most Deputies, I think our economy needs people to come and work.

Indeed, our economy needs more people to come and work but no economy can sustain itself based on exploitation. I worry that is the road we risk going down unless we fundamentally reform the work permit scheme, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, in a way that this Bill, in my view, does not fully do at the moment. I invite the Minister of State to look at how it might be strengthened on Committee Stage, perhaps in conjunction with the Department of Justice.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are moving to the second round of the debate. I call Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan,

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see 20 minutes on the clock; I only requested two minutes. It will be a big job to draw that out.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rules of the Chamber are that the Deputy has to continue right to the bitter end.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure they are. First of all, I wholeheartedly welcome the announcement today that it has been signed off that fishers from outside the EU and the EEA will be able to avail of proper work permits. It is something for which I advocated as soon as I came into this Dáil. I have to be grateful to the Minister of State, Deputy English, in this regard because I had brought it up in the Dáil Chamber with him previously. He promised me there would be movement on it and there has been. I must also mention the efforts of the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, who met some of these non-EU workers when they came to the gates of Leinster House to state their case. He listened and he has delivered. The Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, also took a question in the Dáil on this very issue and I know he pushed for it. Fishing is also big in his constituency of Wexford. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, is obviously the line Minister who brought this forward to get to where we are today.

It is really welcome news for all those non-EU fishers who for years have not being on an equal footing with the same fishermen with whom they have worked alongside on boats. They have not had the same rights. They have had to go back and forth to their home countries in order to keep the old atypical system alive. Sometimes, they have not been able to return to their families for the same reason. It has caused nothing but hardship. When the fishing sector protested in Cork city and Dublin, it did so on many issues, including quota share. One of the main issues on which people protested, however, was the whole area of this atypical visa and the fact that it had to be scrapped and a new work permit introduced. It is fantastic to start with that very welcome news. I am so proud that it was announced today.

This Bill includes efforts to speed up the whole process from start to finish in terms of permits being allocated and granted. I really hope this legislation improves the situation in the hospitality sector for restaurants and chefs and for cafes and hotels. Businesses are in this constant battle where they cannot get chefs or workers in the domestic market. They have to go abroad. It is really important that this Bill provides that function and expedites those permits.

I could say the same for the trucking sector. I have received calls as recently as this week about truck drivers who are going through that same arduous, slow process when they apply for work permits to work here. It is a big issue. There is a shortage of drivers. We know the importance of having a good haulage system in place in terms of the speed of delivery of goods and products. I really hope this legislation also addresses that.

My final point is on the critical skills list. There are workers who I believe should be placed on the critical skills list because of the importance of the service they provide, namely, those who work in nursing homes. There are nursing homes right throughout Ireland, particularly in my constituency, where there is a significant demand for the service but the staff are not available domestically. There is a shortage of staff so they cannot provide the service. They are not able to fill the beds in these homes and that is a big issue. There is a way that can be addressed. I am not sure how flexible the critical skills list is or how quickly additional sectors can be added to that, but I would really advocate for nursing home staff to be included on the critical skills list. It is really important. They provide an important service. I would like to see that happen

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate and update the legislative provisions that regulate the employment permit system, namely, the Employment Permits Acts of 2003 and 2006. The conclusions of the Review of Economic Migration Policy of 2018 endorsed the robust fundamental structures of the existing system to increase its responsiveness, modernise it and ensure that it is capable of adapting to the changing needs the labour market of the future. The review obviously then recommended that new legislation be initiated.

Coming from County Kerry and dealing with an awful lot of employers, whether they are involved in the hotel and hospitality, construction or haulage sectors, fishing, farming, forestry, horticulture, spas, or whether they are agricultural contractors, hairdressers, barbers and beauticians, one thing that comes up on a continuous basis is the awkwardness and contrariness of the procedures involved in trying to get work permits for wonderful people who want to come here to work and earn their living. They want to make this their home and get on with their lives and they have chosen Ireland to do that.

Now, more than ever, with our increasing population and the way Ireland is evolving, please God and fingers crossed we can keep things going from an employment point of view and keep jobs in this country. When people want to come here, I always say we have to try to make it as easy and streamlined as possible for them to do so. However, the big thing is not just to come here but to work here. What comes up repeatedly is that people always say the Irish were welcomed when we went to England, America and Australia. Of course we were welcomed; we worked. Our brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, parents and grandparents went and worked. They did not go and get anything for nothing. They built London and New York. They went down to Sydney and all over the world and everywhere they went, they left the mark of their hand. They left the sweat from their brow and broke their backs working, in many cases. However, they were very glad of that opportunity. I want to see us give other people that same opportunity.

We are not a State with endless money. We are not digging gold, oil or anything out of the ground. We do not have endless resources. Therefore, the only hope we have to survive in Ireland is work. An awful lot of people in this Dáil seem to have very little regard for work. I hear people in here talking on a continuous basis about the four-day week. The only reason they want a four-day week is because they could not clean their own heads, never mind anything else. It is because they do not want to work themselves. The example they want to set in the Dáil is the sooner we have a four-day week, that is better for Ireland. It is not. We all want work. We want as much work as possible. Work in itself creates more work. We have people involved in all those industries I highlighted to the Minister of State and they want workers to come here. When I say to the Minister of State that we are fortunate enough that people in other countries want to come here, I look on that as us being fortunate that they chose Ireland. They will come here and raise their families, work, earn money, pay tax and help our economy to grow. We must do an awful lot of things to allow all that to happen, however. The changes proposed in the Bill will give effect to those recommendations while retaining the key policy focus of supporting the economy and labour market through evidence-based decision-making.

Again I would ask the Minister of State to make it easier to get these work permits.

The number of applications for employment permits for workers outside the European Economic Area has increased in 2022 and it has reached a record high in the past 13 years. Data published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment showed that from the beginning of January to the end of August 2022 a total of 27,653 permits have been issued to foreign workers, while another 2,210 have been refused and 1,466 have been rejected. However, this year's figures show a staggering almost 250% jump in the number of permits awarded in the same periods in 2020 and 2019. I mention the eligibility criteria to get these permits. There are something like seven or eight criteria one has to fill and the general employment permits must have a minimum salary of €30,000, based on a 39-hour week. This can be difficult for employers to attain and we have to look again at the common-sense point of this. If the people issuing the permits know that if these people come here there is a reliable and respectable employer willing to vouch for them and that he or she will have work for them, is that not all we want?

That brings me to the fact that the vastly increasing numbers of people coming here to live will need to find places to stay. The increase in people coming to Ireland on work permits alone will outstrip the number of projected new builds. Similar demands will be placed on all other sectors, from transport to education and health. Where will the 40,000 people who will obtain a work permit in Ireland in 2022 live? That is a very important question. Clearly they will drive up the demand for housing and the cost of renting and buying. Are these factors being considered by Government? To add to this, we also have the separate issue of the Ukrainian refugees, who are most welcome, coming here at the same time and we are struggling to house them.

We heard about the situation in Killarney in recent days and I was glad to play my part in ensuring they got alternative accommodation. These people had made a happy home away from home because they did not want to be here but now that they are here they settled extremely well. Their children are going to school, they are learning the language, many of them have secured part-time work and they are involved in the services that were available in the Killarney area. The principals, teachers and all the different professional people who were dealing with them were most upset when these families were told they would have to leave and go to County Mayo. I have nothing against Mayo but if you have settled and made your home in Killarney - many of them have been there since last March - surely it was wrong and a bad decision to move them. I am grateful to the people in the Department who secured other accommodation for them in Killarney and that they will not have to leave. That was common sense and the system working as it should, for the betterment of people, and most particularly for the betterment of innocent children who are here, not because they want to be, but because they have to be.

The highest number of employment permits, a total of 7,608, were issued for information and communication activities, followed by a total of 6,609 permits issued to workers in health and social work activities. On the nationality of employment permit holders, a large share, 10,171, were Indian nationals. These were followed by: 3,322 Brazilians; 1,387 Filipinos; and 1,277 Pakistanis. We have to look at the sectors that are still crying out for more workers. We have to ask ourselves what we can do in this legislation to make it easier for employers who are suffering because of another issue that is happening.

I do not know if people in the Government realise this, but in the past two weeks the mass exodus from Ireland to Australia and New Zealand was pointed out to me. It is predominantly young boys and girls between the ages of 19 and 25. The number leaving is staggering. We have to encourage young people like that. If they want to go, it is a free world and we wish them nothing but health, happiness and good luck in their journeys. I know many of them personally and there were a couple of parties for them in recent weeks. I am genuinely sorry to see them go, but I remind them that the planes go both ways and that we want them to come back again. However, there is a difference between wanting to go and having to go.

It does not make sense to lose nurses because they feel the careers that are available to them here are not as good as what they could achieve abroad from a monetary and work satisfaction point of view. We all know the basket case the HSE is, to be blunt about it. If 1 million people are waiting for procedures to be carried out in a country with our population that does not look good for the health service. That is not a reflection on the people working in it but it is a reflection on the management of it. I am just picking on that sector and if we lose a young nurse and he or she goes away to the other end of the world or somewhere like that, perhaps we are losing that next generation, including their children and grandchildren and they are gone from us, perhaps forever. We should think of the parents and grandparents at home who would dearly love to see those people stay. I want those work opportunities to be here for those people and I want the recompense they would get to be of the same benefit to them as they will get abroad. We cannot do much about things like the weather but by God we can make working conditions for these people attractive to make them stay.

A lot of those working in construction, agriculture, plant hire and so on are leaving. Why is that?. Whether we are in the Government or in the Opposition we all have a responsibility to take care of those people. We cannot stop people going abroad to work if they want to go, but I do not want them to have to go. For example, in the 1950s many of my aunts and uncles left because they simply had to go. There was not £1 to be made here and there was nothing here at the time. When they went abroad they just worked and worked and that is how they got on. That was a case of having to go but we want to try to make it attractive for the people who are here now. I ask the Minister of State, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and all the different Ministers to wake up to the fact that we are losing thousands of people every week from this country. This has been happening more in the past six months than was the case in the past six years and I would like the Minister of State to address that when he speaks later. Does the Government realise that is happening?

I would welcome anything that can be done in this legislation that would make it attractive for these people to come here, through all the different sectors I have outlined, and to make it as cost effective, streamlined and as attractive as possible for people to be welcomed into this country to work. I would remind some Deputies, who seem to have a hang-up about work, that there is nothing wrong with wanting, looking for, needing, encouraging and creating work and employment.

To be honest, what we are lacking at the moment is people to do some of those things. We need to show a bit of leadership in this House. I would love to put a ban on any Deputy standing up and talking rubbish about a four-day working week and how the sooner we get to it the better for everybody. I do not use bad language but if I were anywhere else than here, the word I would use would be something along the lines of "balderdash".

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am last to speak but I hope not least. I remind Deputy Michael Healy-Rae that not too long ago, the Government mantra, like that of other Governments before it, was to work towards a four-day week on the logic that we would be much happier and healthier and more effective and productive. However, the mantra changes depending on the market.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill, even though I am the final Deputy to do so. I pay tribute to the Department and the library and research service for their work on it. I will try to be as quick as I can and hope colleagues stay awake, but there is a lot to refer to on this subject. I know what the Bill intends to do and, on one level, it is very positive. Its provisions have been clearly set out by the Department in its briefing note and by the library and research service. As noted by other speakers, the purpose of the Bill is to consolidate the existing legislation and make it more focused. It also seeks to introduce a seasonal employment permit, which I will come back to with reference to the committee that looked into this; provide additional conditions for the granting of an employment permit, which I welcome; facilitate third-party subcontractors, which I am a little unsure about; provide for automatic indexation of salary thresholds, which is quite basic; and improve efficiency and provide flexibility. All of this is very welcome.

However, we must also consider these provisions in the context of what we are trying to do in this area, particularly in the context of the belated publication today by the Department of Justice of the report on an atypical working scheme for non-EEA fishers in the Irish fleet, which I have in front of me. The issue dealt with in that report is not covered by this legislation, which raises the question as to why that is so, given the report was completed in March and we are now in October. The report has been published today and we are trying frantically to read and understand it. It is very much related to what we are talking about in the debate on this Bill.

The background to the Bill includes the pre-legislative scrutiny work done by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am sure the Minister of State has read the committee's report because he takes these things very seriously. The Chairman of the joint committee, Deputy Quinlivan, says in the foreword to the report: "The pre-legislative scrutiny of the General Scheme of the Employment Permits Bill has probably been the most challenging one undertaken by the Joint Committee to date." I am sure it was challenging on lots of levels but particularly on a human level in terms of considering the situation of migrant and seasonal workers. We all in Ireland come from a background in which our natural feeling is to empathise with people. I go to Achill every year. In the past, there was a constant flow of people from there to Scotland, made up of seasonal workers who did just about everything. That has left a huge mark on the island and on people there. It is the same in Connemara, which people left to work in different areas. I would never like to see a repetition of what the people from Achill and Connemara endured in England and Scotland, although I pay tribute to those places for taking a lot of our people when we did not look after them. The Minister of State knows the point I am making about the very difficult conditions for seasonal workers. We know that very well. There is a double obligation on us, one of which is a moral obligation and the other an obligation on a human level, to bring in legislation that protects workers.

That is what we are trying to do in this Bill but we must consider the concerns that have been expressed. I educate myself by reading the Bill digest, the briefing information and then, depending on time, I try to read the pre-legislative scrutiny that takes place in committee. Like most Deputies, I am always under pressure. In this instance, the committee has raised ten serious concerns and made eight recommendations. Those concerns and recommendations jump off the pages of the report and the Minister of State has taken two or three of them on board. He has gone with the joint committee in getting rid of the special circumstances employment permit. I welcome that, although I think he may come back at it in another way. Let us see. He went with the recommendation on conditionality, which is very good. He is also going to make the system more flexible by removing many of the proposals for making operational changes by way of regulations. That is to be welcomed in one way but it means there will be much less scrutiny and oversight of the system and much more power for the Minister. I will come back to that point presently in reference to the absence of oversight of the atypical scheme the Government is now recommending be stopped. Oversight is very important.

In this Bill, we are amending and overhauling three items of legislation. In fact, we are getting rid of two, if that is the right way to put it. I am losing my legal terminology as I spend more time here. The 2014 Act was brought in to put certain rights on a statutory basis. Now we are deciding that approach was too rigid and we are going down a less official route. I have serious concerns about that because I am not sure what analysis has been done to highlight the inadequacies of the 2014 legislation, which was introduced to copper-fasten rights on a statutory basis.

As I said, the joint committee made eight recommendations and outlined ten key concerns in respect of this Bill. In the Bill digest, the authors do not make a judgment but ask the question of the Department as to whether it has taken on those recommendations and concerns. The Minister of State is of the opinion he has taken them on but he does not really seem to have done so. I hope this will all be teased out on Committee Stage. I have only read the joint committee's report once, which was the best I could do, but we must take on board its serious concerns. It is an all-party committee and no member said he or she is against the report or offered any alternative or amendment to it.

There is a balance to be struck in these matters. We need workers but there is a balancing of rights in that and a balance to be found in ensuring our own people are trained, upskilled and provided with opportunities. Reading all of the documentation, what jumps out at me is the slowness to remove some of the skills from the critical skills list, which should be happening because we, as a nation, have upskilled our people to fill those vacancies. That does not seem to be happening. I welcome diversity. It is good for any country to have diversity but it is also good for us to look at how we are first upskilling our own people here in Ireland to ensure we do not continue to see an absence of critical skills.

I have fallen into the trap with the Minister of State, for which I take the blame, of asking whether home care workers could be put on the critical skills list. On reflection, he was right to say "No". We used to have the problem of getting somebody assessed as being in need of home care hours or packages. That was the big battle for us. Now people are assessed very quickly, or relatively quickly, but there are no care workers to provide the hours. We have allowed a situation to develop in which we simply do not have care workers. I could list the day centres in Galway that do not have staff to provide disability services. There is also the problem that goes along with that of using rented buildings instead of using capital funding to build facilities. Day centres and respite services are not open and home care packages are not being implemented because there are no staff. What do we do? We Deputies come in here and ask that these role be put on the critical skills list in order that the staff can be recruited from somewhere else, but that is not the answer. The answer is to upskill and train people in this country and provide good working conditions for them. That is what should be done within our country and it certainly and equally is what should be done for workers we want to bring here.

Representatives of migrants have expressed concern about the continued tying of the employee to the employer. When I looked into this, I was told that in certain situations, workers can move from their employer and certainly can do so when there is abuse, misuse or a failure to have the employment contract enforced.

What vulnerable employee is going to move? That should not be there. The idea of giving permits to a sector, rather than an employer and an employee should definitely be looked at.

Of course, all of this is premised on the review from 2018, which set out seven basic principles. It is worth reading out some of those principles, where the vulnerability of the sector is identified. It is set out in the 2018 report and repeated in different documents. The Review of Economic Migration Policy sets out the seven guiding principles, including the preference for having workers from the EEA area, and so on. It goes through them. I am not picking and choosing, because they are all very important in setting out the principles. However, under principle 6, on employment rights, the review states:

Migrant workers are often a more vulnerable class of people, particularly in the lower skilled end of the labour market. Language difficulties, cultural differences, and lack of social networks can disadvantage migrants and increase the potential for abuse by unscrupulous employers. Ireland has a very thorough employment rights legal framework. Careful consideration is given to the potential for abuse and many of the criteria in evaluating employment permit applications focus on the bona-fides of the employer and the protection of the permit holder.

Migrant workers are identified, within the seven principles, as a very vulnerable group of people.

A report was also published today, which I have tried to read as quickly as I can. It is inexplicable that it should be published today when Second Stage of the Bill has already commenced in the Dáil. No explanation has been provided for why the Report of Review of Atypical Working Scheme for Non-EEA Crew in the Irish Fishing Fleet is dated March 2022. First, the recommendation is that this group of people come under the permit system. I am not sure why that was not done. Can it be done on Committee Stage? The report published today seems to say that it will take a year. It seems daft to be going through the Employment Permits Bill 2022 and not include this group of people. Looking at the executive summary of the report of the review group, it makes two recommendations. It states:

The Review Group was in full agreement in relation to its conclusions and recommendations. The key recommendation of the group is that the employment of non-EEA crew in the Irish Fishing Fleet be provided for under DETE’s Employment Permit scheme instead of the Atypical Working Scheme.

However, it goes on to state that it will take some time for this to be implemented, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will lead on the work. I make a strong appeal for it to be included in the Bill as it progresses through the Dáil. The second main recommendation of the review group is that "any AWS Fisher with a current immigration permission, and who wishes to do so, have their existing immigration permission extended for a period of time, to be agreed by the relevant Departments, to allow them to remain in the State to apply for an employment permit under the DETE’s employment permit scheme and receive a decision on that application." Those are two strong recommendations in respect of people who find themselves in that position.

This report deserves to be praised because it is making a positive recommendation. However, we cannot do this in isolation. We have to look at how this was ever allowed to happen in our country, with our history. The atypical working scheme, AWS, for non-EEA crew in the Irish fishing fleet was established in 2015 because a previous review found that we needed to do something quickly because of how badly workers in this sector were being treated. The AWS was brought in and a monitoring group was set up, but it was given no terms of reference. I do not know how we can have trust in the system. I want to be positive about this Bill, but when I look at the report published today, I see the gaps. The oversight committee was established and a memorandum of understanding was agreed in February 2016. However, the oversight committee met on an informal basis. By 2019, a mediated agreement was required. Imagine an oversight group being set up to monitor the AWS for the group of vulnerable people that we are saying should no longer be in the scheme but should have permits, and the oversight group needing a mediation settlement to tell it what to do in relation to monitoring the system that was brought in following the task force report in 2015. Here we are now in 2022, and no cover is provided for at all within this Bill. There is no learning either. It seems daft to me. "Daft" is not even the word for it. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was in charge of it and a mediated agreement was concluded.

When I looked at that, I asked myself what led to an atypical scheme, and a scheme that was not monitored, being brought in. On pages 31 and 32 of the report, it is stated that:

Since the introduction of the Atypical Worker Permission Scheme in 2016, the WRC has:

- Carried out 7 enforcement operations

- Participated in a Garda-led operation

- Carried out almost 500 inspections of the 170 vessels in the Scheme

- Completed 228 investigations

- Detected 365 contraventions of employment legislation

- Brought 20 prosecutions against fishing vessel owners.

According to the report, the WRC found that 42% of vessels inspected had been compliant without WRC intervention. However, 54% only became compliant after WRC intervention, and 2% of vessels remain non-compliant. The report also sets out the contraventions that were found between 2019 and 2021, some of which I believe Deputy Barry read out earlier. I will not have time to go through them all, but the report lists all of the contraventions. They include 29 contraventions of working without permission, 24 contraventions of national minimum wage not being paid, 18 contraventions in respect of annual leave and 21 contraventions of not complying with an inspector's direction. They are detailed on page 32 of the report.

We can see the importance of the matter. It is one thing to bring in good legislation that is grounded in human rights, but we are not even managing that. Hopefully, when it goes through Committee Stage that is what will happen. It is another thing to monitor it. I will finish by saying that when I read this report, I was aghast. The report highlights that there is no evidence of human trafficking and no prosecutions have been made. The review group seems to think that is good. The Minister of State will remember the debate we had on the Criminal Justice (Smuggling of Persons) Act 2021. In that legislation we swapped around the burden of proof, so hard was it to bring a prosecution in human trafficking. At least that is what the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, told us. The burden of proof was reversed so that humanitarian organisations on the ground now have to prove that they are not trafficking human beings. They have to prove their innocence. In the report of the review of the AWS, the review group takes great comfort from the fact that there were no prosecutions, as opposed to analysing how it happened that there were no prosecutions for human trafficking, particularly when the US State Department's Trafficking in Persons, TIPS, reports, a report by Maynooth University and reports from the International Transport Workers Federation all tell us that there are serious concerns in relation to human trafficking. Over time, the US TIPS reports have repeatedly criticised the AWS. We were downgraded and put on a tier 2 watchlist, although the Government has argued against this. The 2021 TIPS report stated that Ireland did not "meet the minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking", but it said that we are "making significant efforts to do so". The 2022 TIPS report also outlines the failure of the State in relation to human trafficking. It stated that one alleged trafficker's case was thrown out, "in part due to the government's failure to inform the four victims of their opportunity to testify". It went on to note that "In 2021, government officials raised concerns the workplace relations commission (WRC) did not sufficiently understand its role in identifying trafficking victims or have adequate trafficking training, and the separation between immigration, labor, and trafficking enforcement was unclear to all officials." It is worrying. These concerns are set out and highlighted in the US State Department's TIPS reports year after year. I became familiar with those reports in relation to the Criminal Justice (Smuggling of Persons) Bill 2021 which became law a year ago.

While I give a cautious welcome to this Bill, I must ask why the Government has not dealt with the concerns of the cross-party committee, why the report was not published and why provision was not made for employees under the atypical scheme.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to deal with some of the questions that were raised. I welcome the interest in this Bill and the discussion and debate around it. I thank my colleagues who have stayed for a long time. I recognise there is great interest in this legislation and I look forward to working with Deputies on Committee Stage to bring through the Bill.

I acknowledge there is annoyance that we did not take on board all the matters raised during pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not possible to always take everything from pre-legislative scrutiny. It is an important process and I totally agree with it. Pre-legislative scrutiny certainly enabled me and my officials to make some positive changes to the Bill on foot of the advice we received. We will tease out other parts of that on Committee Stage. However, there is no guarantee that recommendations made at pre-legislative scrutiny will always be accepted. It is a worthwhile exercise from which everyone gains. We have certain reasons for not accepting all the recommendations, which we will tease through. I will deal with the issues touching on atypical employees. Deputy Connolly is leaving the Chamber but I will chat to her about the issue another time. The advice which emerged from pre-legislative scrutiny is there and we will have the next stage, with Committee Stage as well, in July.

In response to Deputy Connolly, the report that was published only went to the Cabinet yesterday. That is why it was only published yesterday evening or today. It involves a number of Departments. It is worth reading the full report. I am conscious Deputy Connolly has only had the chance to speed-read it and she likes to do things in detail. I am happy to engage with her on the issue. Her main question was why we have not allowed for atypical employees. This legislation sets out the criteria for the various lists that were recommended. We do not name in this legislation all the categories of people who would be able to avail of a permit. The recommendation in that report is, thankfully, that we now allow the fisheries sector to avail of a permit scheme. It does not have to be specifically referenced in this legislation. This legislation is, however, clearly about that matter. It will deal with the process they can now engage with. I know the Deputy needs to rush off. I will engage with her again on this matter. There are many issues in the report. In fairness to the fisheries sector and the many stakeholders involved in it, they were asking to be permitted to go into the general employment permit system. That is what we are now doing and will do. It is a positive. There are issues in that regard going back a number of years. I am not going to read the report now because I did not bring it with me. I am happy to engage with the Deputy another time. I have no doubt the committee will want to do so too.

Many Deputies asked if the legislation will erode the employment rights or workers. I want to be clear that it will not. Employment permit holders have exactly the same protections under Irish employment law as any other worker in the State. The employment permit system has been designed to ensure that the employment rights of migrants are observed. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is responsible for regulating many aspects of the labour market and works to ensure that opportunities for labour exploitation are minimised. The legislation supports employment rights compliance in the State and the protection of employment rights for migrants by, for example, ensuring a written contract of employment is in place, the permit holder receives the original copy of the permit and a summary of the employee's rights printed on the employment permit with contact details for the Workplace Relations Commission where the permit holder can access information in a number of languages. The legislation prohibits deductions in respect of the application process from the permit holder's remuneration. Employment permit holders may change employer within 12 months in circumstances such as redundancy or where the terms of employment are fundamentally changed due to events that were unforeseen at the time of application. I acknowledge there is an issue around those 12 months but we must recognise this is a two-way process. The employer has offered the job. The potential employee looked for that job and applied for a permit to go with it. They have worked hand in hand. There is a cost to the process and we have to bear that in mind. A 12-month period is an acceptable length of time for that permit not to be moved elsewhere. There are exceptional circumstances, and we have dealt with that carefully in many cases. We allow for different scenarios. We work closely with people in that regard. I think most people would recognise that the process works reasonably well but I am happy to tease it through at a later stage.

All employment permit holders may change employer after 12 months. Minimum remuneration levels are set. The Bill will include additional control for meat processing and other professions with a threshold of less than €22,000. We will work with the meat processing sector controls. The WRC's inspector or authorised officers for the enforcement of the Employment Permits Acts, and their investigation and enforcement powers, work to protect employees from abuses of the employment permit system by unscrupulous employers. Such employers may be subject to fines or a prison term where they are found to be in breach of the Employment Permits Acts. The proposed amendments do not impact any of these safeguards. I want to be clear about that. They do not impact on any of these safeguards. There is an impression being given here that they do but they do not. The provisions for training and accommodation which have been proposed will further contribute to the support for migrant workers in specified circumstances.

There are a couple of issues there, as raised by Deputy O'Reilly, around the need for upskilling and training, and the conditionality of permits. We agree with the committee about that. We have also attached conditions to some of the various quotas and permits already. We are as one on the need to do that. We are also as one and very clear on the remuneration that for indexation must be allowed for. That is fair and we want to allow for that to happen automatically and ensure it is not at the whim of a Minister to set or update the wages. They should follow an indexation. That is dealt with in the legislation. We are as one on that matter, which the committee also raised.

There has been a lot of debate about the need for permits and Deputies have asked whether training and upskilling can deal with the need. There is a robust system here to judge the need when a permit is applied for or to judge the need for a particular skill to be on the critical skills list or the ineligible list. It is about that need and the analysis of that sector. We have an expert skills analysis team in our Department. It analyses individual sectors along with the parent Departments and other stakeholders. There is a cross-departmental working group to analyse all the various sectors and requests when it comes to managing these various lists under the legislation. We always first look to see can the need be met locally. We ask whether the need can be met within the European context or the EEA context. We are clear about that. It is a part of the European agreement. It is part of the EU in which we operate. We would also ask whether we can find the talent necessary locally through skills and development. We ask can we close the skills gap by investing in skills and development. I say to employers that there are now many opportunities to engage with the State through my Department, Skillnet Ireland and the training levy, as well as the Departments of Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and Social Protection. They are all involved in funding training and upskilling solutions and supports to allow potential employees to go on those courses. They also work with employers with skills shortages. As has been reflected in the debate, many sectors say they have skills shortages. Nearly every business owner I talk to tells me they cannot find the staff they need and have a skills shortage. There is an issue here. However, close to 1 million people in this country are not at work for various different reasons. They are not all availing of social welfare payments but neither are they in the work environment, for whatever reason. We always say we must try to encourage those people back into the work system. That means there must be good terms and conditions, as we have debated in this Chamber. This legislation reflects the need for that. There must also be a good tax system to ensure it is worthwhile going to work or taking on extra work or shifts at the weekend. That is why I am glad we made changes in respect of the higher taxation rate in the most recent budget. That was to encourage people to take on more work where there is a need to do so.

There are supports for people to go back into work. The work that is done through the pathways to work scheme, led by the Department of Social Protection, is a useful means of getting people back into work, encouraging them to get back to work and assisting them to get back to work, and to ensure they do not lose out on entitlements because they went back to work. A lot of work has been done across Departments. I always encourage any prospective applicants for permits to look at that system first and to engage with it.

Many Deputies named the individual sectors that require permits. Many of those sectors have engaged with us and we have asked them to go back and engage with the Department of Education, our education and training boards, Skillnet Ireland and the Department of Social Protection around trying to source talent locally. That is a process through which they all have to go. If we have gathered all the evidence and tried all those approaches but still cannot fill those skill gaps, then a resort to permits is often used. It is only one part of the solution and should never be the permanent or only solution. However, we must recognise that we are short of critical skills in some areas and need to bring them in. In other cases in respect of general permits, we cannot source the people we need within the EEA and the permits are set out for that too. The system is managed extremely well and reviewed quite regularly. A number of sectors that Deputies want to have reviewed have been put forward. I will not go through all the names involved. We engage with the various parent Departments in that regard. We try to respond, which we did over the past two years on a number of occasions by removing quotas or allowing for a certain number in various categories. I will not go through the list now because this debate has gone on a long time

We try to respond as much as we possibly can and will continue to do so.

We are not too far off the recommendations made by the committee, in most cases. There is a difference in respect of the seasonal permit. The initial review that led to this change recommended a seasonal permit, as did the public consultation. The committee's recommendation seems to recognise there is a need for such a permit but suggests a different way of doing it. I accept that is its recommendation. We are all agreed that there is a need to allow for some sort of seasonal permit. We are one of the few countries in Europe that does not make allowance for it. We believe we are right to allow for a seasonal permit. I accept we do not have all the amendments to tease through in the Chamber but we will on Committee Stage. Maybe we will be in a better place to move forward as one on the seasonal permit when people see the recommendations we are putting forward, in addition to the amendments and the regulations that will come, which will also be discussed on Committee Stage.

The committee recommended that the special circumstance employment permit should only be issued following certification by a relevant agency. We are not proceeding with that so we have probably gone further than the committee on that. We can deal with that issue in other ways, with the agreement of the various sectors.

From my reading of it, what we are saying on the 50:50 waivers is much the same as the committee recommendation. There is possibly some confusion around that so if I need to tease through that on Committee Stage I will, but what we are saying is practically the same.

On the committee recommendation on the proposal to amend the labour market needs test and other operational details by way of regulations, there is disagreement on whether that should be done through regulation or primary legislation. As I have been a Minister of State in many different Departments at this stage - I must be getting old - I can see the benefits of having regulations and not always having the details in primary legislation because it makes it very hard to change things thereafter, when we want to do that in full transparency and in a way that is open to every analysis. It is not a case of trying to avoid scrutiny but being able to deal with scenarios when they come at us. Very often, our officials cannot do that or cannot make changes because we have to go back to primary legislation. That can be a slow process and also means, when we consolidate Bills, that it is a long process to get everything right, whereas we can engage with all the stakeholders and Members to make changes in regulations a little more quickly, when the need is there. It is not to abuse the situation in any shape or form. If we need to work on that to get people's confidence in it, we will also do that on Committee Stage.

The committee also recommended that "holders of General Employment Permits should be given improved rights in relation to family reunion and the access of family members to the labour market". That is something that comes up quite a lot in debates in the Chamber. There is certainly a change in tone on that in this House compared with what we might have had years ago from some, although that is not the case for everybody, which I accept - I got that stare from Deputies. We are talking about employment permits. We are not the Department of Justice but I will certainly make sure that this debate is reflected back to that Department and that can be kept in mind. The Department of Justice recently brought forward its own scheme to deal with many scenarios where people were left in the shadows in this country. More than 6,000 people, or possibly 8,000 individuals, will rightly benefit from that scheme. That is a positive contribution.

The Department of Justice is very much open to working with Members to get this right. It has engaged quite a lot with us on employment permits in order to align our work and try to see how we can fix the system together in order to respond. The situation in respect of doctors was one where we were able to work together, along with the Department of Health. There are opportunities to make changes. I will certainly reflect the tone that has been put forward during this debate around critical skills, the general permit and the length of time after which someone can bring their family here. The period for critical skills permits is straight away but a general permit is 12 months, which we always believed was acceptable and is still recommended but we can tease that out a little more and I can also talk to the Department of Justice about it. It goes back to the fact that general permits are not meant to be the full solution to a situation. We would like to invest in skills, training and education locally to fill those jobs from within Ireland as best we possibly can.

The committee also raised a concern around the link to an employer for the first 12 months. We disagree on that. We do not believe that is unfair for the first 12 months, once we allow for scenarios to be dealt with. This legislation allows for that, as will the regulations. We do not agree with its members on this issue, but we have justifiable reasons for that. Most people generally come to this country on that permit and, in most situations, it seems to work extremely well. Cases have been brought to our attention that are dealt with and, very often, dealt with effectively.

The report further states that the committee would like to see the concept of conditionality in the work permit system developed. We are at one on that. We agree with that. We have used conditions in the past and will do more of that in future. We are all agreed on that. It is not just about training for filling the potential role locally; it is about a person who comes here getting training. The conditions for healthcare assistant roles are that there will be training, people in those jobs will be helped to attain qualifications in their first two years here, and we will then judge the second application for a permit based on that, rightly so. We are in the same space on that one.

The report states "the protection and enhancement of the position of employees should be at the centre of proposals to amend the employment permit system". That is absolutely what it is. It is to streamline the process for everybody involved in it, including the person who wants to work here and does not want to wait six, seven or eight months for that permit to be processed and the employer who is offering that job. We are protecting people in this system. That is what we are trying to do. The employment permit system has been designed to ensure that the employment rights of migrants are observed. We are very clear on that and very strong on it as a Department. I have previously said in the Chamber that I am quite proud of Ireland's labour protection laws. All those laws are fully available to people whether they are on a permit or not. That is the way it is. We are very clear on that too.

I will try to deal with a couple of other issues that were touched on. There was a lot of conversation around HGV drivers. No quota on that is operated by us and there is no delay relating to the permits. The question raised was around the recognition of qualifications. We do a lot in our Department but we do not recognise people's qualifications for their ability to drive. That is down to the Road Safety Authority and the Department of Transport. Likewise, they will try to speed up that process and have dealt with individual countries in respect of that. There have been some issues around the recognition of qualifications, for example, of many members of the Ukrainian community who have come here. I have raised at European level that we should find a quicker way to do that across all professions and not just HGV drivers. This issue is not dealt with by our Department but I will reflect it back because if we are able to approve a permit quite quickly, every other Department can come with us on that journey too.

We try to align on this issue. We have had a lot of luck in having the resources but we have a lot of backing from the Minister and Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, and our Secretary General to put additional staff and resources into our permit section in order that we can deal with our backlog and get through that. Mr. Kevin Daly, who led that charge, is present. We have dramatically increased the team and the skills. The IT system has changed and is being changed dramatically for the future. We have been able to respond at the level of our Department to clear that backlog and put a system in place to keep the processing time down to less than four weeks and, in many cases, two or three weeks. Other Departments also want to do that and are talking to us about how to align our systems. We will do that. Legislation such as this makes it a little easier for us to be able to do our job in the Department in responding to all the needs.

The issue of the home-care sector comes up quite a lot. As with every other sector, I would argue that permits are not the only solution. This was looked at previously and it did not pass the criteria. The evidence was not there to indicate we should bring in those permits and we did not make changes to that. We all still recognise that there is a major shortage of people in that sector who provide care in the home. There a quite a large demand for it that is not being met. There are different reasons for that. We always say we have to look at terms and conditions, pay levels, issues around transport, the HSE contracts that are on offer and everything that goes with that. A working group is now doing that and looking at all those issues. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Butler, is in charge of that. Out of that work, which is practically complete, that group will bring forward recommendations. If there is an ask there for us to do something around permits, we will of course respond to that based on the evidence. Again, the solution is a combination of attracting more people locally into that sector, with the skills, training and supports they need as part of their terms and conditions, in addition to the HSE playing its part. There is a lot going on there. We are willing to be part of that, if the ask is there from the Department of Health and the evidence is there to back it up. That is what the interdepartmental working group is doing. That report should be available for debate in the Chamber quite soon and will feed into the system. I am well aware of the need in that sector and we are well prepared to work on that.

Other issues were raised on different aspects of farming and agriculture. We have engaged with many of those sectors and have made changes to the quota over the years but the evidence has to be gathered and has to come through the parent Department with a very clear ask of us. We try to respond where we can. We make changes quite quickly, when the evidence is there. Some sectors were mentioned. These sectors have to engage with the various Departments and prove they have tried to find some talent locally. It is important we do that.

On apprenticeships, traineeships and so on, there is a long history in our Department of saying to people in these various sectors to look at their systems. Are they putting innovation and automation in place in their businesses to try to deal with some of their concerns? Are they investing in skills and training? Have they designed an apprenticeship? Sectors were mentioned that took a long time to design their apprenticeships to respond to a skills shortage, even though it was highlighted by our skills unit many years previously. A successful apprenticeship programme is a combination of that sector working with the education system to design it.

However, there must be a desire and need to do that. As we are talking about apprenticeships, I am delighted that the number of apprenticeships to choose from in Ireland has gone from only 29 to close to 70. We have a long way to go to reach the same number as Germany or Austria, where there are 300 or 400, but there is now a recognition in this country of the role apprenticeships can play in developing talent and career paths and that they can give people top-class careers. It is about that blend of further education and training, and moving on into higher education where it is appropriate, while recognising the need to sometimes have in-house and on-the-job training. Many solutions can be found through apprenticeships, traineeships, Skillnet, education and training board, ETB, Skills to Advance programmes and all of those initiatives. We ask employers and those who are not working to engage with these and to find ways forward.

We can remove occupations from the ineligible list based on evidence. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked a question about that earlier. We do this based on criteria. Likewise, we will put occupations on the critical skills list based on evidence.

For some strange reason, Deputy Paul Murphy wanted to make some accusations about lobbying. I can deal with him off the record on that. I do not mean "off the record". I mean I will deal with him at another time because he is not here. I will say on the record that I have not been lobbied by the person he made reference to. I am very clear on that. I do not believe my officials have been either. The Deputy may want to check his records and correct the record. We can get behind that. I will certainly check on our side. It is fine. We are very much open to any sector that wants to come to us for discussions. We are very open to meeting people. However, it was being insinuated that this was something else, which I do not like. It is certainly not true on my part. I put that on the record. It can be dealt with again if needs be.

Deputy Cahill raised the issue of major shortages of workers in many sectors and the red tape and bureaucracy in the system. We are trying to cut the red tape and bureaucracy. That is what this Bill is about. We have cut a lot of that red tape. There were a lot of question marks placed over the system and the application process today. I have looked at the application process and, to be honest, it is not that complicated. Some people navigate it very successfully and can apply and get their permits dealt with quite quickly. Others find it complicated or get stuck in the system for whatever reason. Some people pay thousands of euro to have it done only for it to be done wrong by those they are paying. We in the Department are very open to working with people who are making applications. Again, we have made changes. We will streamline the process and do better after this legislation passes but it is a two-way process. We are quite clear and provide training, advice and guidance as to how to make these applications. I disagree with the idea that it is very complicated.

I am also very concerned that someone said they had been charged €8,000 to make an application or that an application costs that much. As far as I am aware, that should not be the case. Our fee is approximately €1,000, which is a long way short of €8,000. Again, it seems that some misinformation has been presented to the House. Perhaps there is more to the story than I am aware of.

Deputies O'Dowd and Canney raised the issue of home care. In fairness, Deputy O'Reilly did as well. Most speakers touched on it. It is a sector I have touched on and which we are prepared to work with.

The case of a person who wished to work in Wexford while coming from Offaly was raised. I am afraid that is not within our Department's remit but I will certainly check it out. It has not been brought to my attention before today. Those situations should not arise. I believe it related to someone who has come from Ukraine and who was given accommodation that did not match their job. At this stage, the system should be able to respond. Some 5,000 or 6,000 people who have come from Ukraine are now working here. It could be more because the last time I checked was probably July. These people are successfully in jobs. We try to facilitate that through all our Departments and through engagement. Likewise, every effort should be made to ensure their accommodation matches up with where they want to work. I do not know how that person might have fallen through the cracks. It is a shame if they did because we need more people working in the healthcare system. I will certainly check it out but it is not something my Department is normally directly responsible for. There was reference to the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and IPAS. We will have that matter dealt with.

There was a request for the critical skills list to reflect our needs in respect of retrofitting. Reference is made in the Housing for All document to the need to work with our Department to deal with the skills agenda. We made changes to some of the occupations on those lists on foot of that. We again work with all the sectors involved. We try to respond when there is a very clear need. With regard to the retrofitting of houses, many of our ETBs, technological universities and universities are involved with developing training programmes and courses to respond to those needs. We need approximately 17,000 people to work in that sector. Again, it will be a matter of a combination of using our own education system to upskill people who are in other jobs or out of work and who want to go into that sector and using the employment permits system in some cases where skills are needed. The system can do that. We try to make that clear.

On climate change, rather than praising any individual sector, I believe Deputy Ó Cathasaigh was asking that, when it comes to setting criteria, we ensure the country's other needs are captured in addition to the economic needs we deal with. I believe they generally do but I will take a look to make sure. If there is a commitment from the Government to tackle climate change and if we do not have the skills to do that, the permits system can respond. Our economic agenda is now very much tied to our green agenda. Many customers of the companies we have here are demanding that they have a green agenda. Likewise, the Government has to have such an agenda. The climate change Bill and plans highlight and drive that agenda. Of course, the permits system can respond to those needs but I will make sure that is the case.

I believe I have dealt with most of the issues that were brought up. If I have missed anything, I am happy to go back to it. The issue of platform workers was raised. This is causing a lot of debate at European level. There are efforts to find the answer to this issue. There are directives and we are working with them. Everyone wants to make sure that people here are fully protected whether they are self-employed or not. We strive to make sure that people are protected. Where there is misclassification, there is a process to deal with it. We have a working group on that. Having strengthened the social protection supports offered to those who are in work and those who are self-employed, the country is in a strong position with regard to our social welfare system. We do not want anyone falling into the gaps. That is an issue we are looking at and focus on but we have to ensure that, when we take on new initiatives and new sectors, we do not stymie work, innovation or opportunities to create new businesses. It is about getting that balancing act right. As a country, we generally do get it right but we are always prepared to look again, to watch things and to listen, learn and engage.

On foot of a request from the Tánaiste, there is a team, which I chair, looking at the whole issue of misclassification, or "bogus self-employment" as Deputy O'Reilly might call it. I got that stare again but, again, we are in that space working with all the various stakeholders to see if anything can be strengthened and if we need to do more. Revenue and the Department of Social Protection have a very strong system in this regard which is quite quick to make an initial decision but in which appeals can take a long time. That is where the issue might be. We are happy to work on that. That working group is focused on that as well.

I hope I have covered most of the questions that were raised. There are others on which I could go on for ages. To be clear, we do have an expert group on future skills needs and it puts great work into looking ahead and closely analysing the country's needs. It is often in the follow-through, which involves everyone and not just the Government and a range of Departments, that the system may not deliver quickly enough. However, when we have analysis that tells us where there are going to be difficulties with skills in five, six or seven years' time - many of these difficulties are already here now but the analysis tells us what is coming down the track in years to come - we have to make sure we respond to those needs through our education system, with enterprise also playing its part. Some sectors have done that really well but not every sector has, which can sometimes come back to bite them. It is important that, when we do analysis and come up with a list of recommendations, we try to follow through on them. That is what we are doing with this Bill. It is based on analysis from 2018. We are now trying to follow through and to change the system as much as possible to reflect that analysis. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the committee but we will work through that on Committee Stage. I hope we all be on the same page when we finish this in the very near future. I again thank Members for all of their contributions to the debate here today. I also thank our officials in the Department.