Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fearaim fáilte don Aire Stáit. Senators on this side of the House support the principles of the Bill. Until Senator Cullinane referred to him I was not aware that the gentleman concerned in this case was in the Gallery with his family and advocates of migrants' rights. I welcome them to the House.

Anyone who has emigrated from this country will know what Mr. Younis went through and what it is like to be an exploited worker. I was am emigrant. I was not exploited, thanks be to God, but I was in England at a time when the infamous lump system operated in the construction industry. Irish workers were taken on, primarily although not exclusively by Irish owned companies, and paid a lump sum under the counter. They had no rights whatsoever and were completely exploited. Many of the motorways and large buildings of the United Kingdom were built on the back of such exploited labour. It is a credit to the Irish community in Britain that they rose above all of that and continue to make a valuable contribution to their adopted country.

We in Ireland have, in our genes, an understanding of worker exploitation. I am sure Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan was influenced by that instinct as much as by law in requesting that the Oireachtas address the issue. This goes to show that the Oireachtas and the Judiciary can work hand in hand. The Judiciary fulfils an important role in identifying gaps in our legislation, particularly where matters of human rights are concerned.

I am glad this matter has come before the House. I know of a worker from a non-EU country who came to this country on a work permit to a specific employer. Within a short time of arriving here he transferred to another employer and remained with that employer for five years, during which time his passport was stamped regularly and annually.

There was no indication that there was any difficulty with his work permit until he went to change his employment after five years. At that point, he was deemed to have broken the law, because there was no defence for the employee. The original employer had passed on whatever responsibilities it had to the second employer. It did not do so formally, so in effect it did nothing. It did not inform the second employer that it had to apply for a new work permit and that the work permits are job specific. In other words, when a non-EU national gets a work permit, one must work with the employer who got the work permit. The person was threatened with deportation. It was news to the individual concerned. However, I am glad that common sense prevailed. It was accepted that he was the innocent party in this and was able to have his new work permit documented and released to him. He is now in gainful employment in this country.

I appreciate that this is a different issue as it arose out of a claim that was made to the courts for exploitation. That is what opened up this issue. From that point of view, there are elements of this which we cannot gloss over either, notwithstanding that Amjad Hussein's rights were deemed by the court to have been trampled on. In a reply to a parliamentary question the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, said, among other things: "Justice Hogan found that it must therefore be taken that the Oireachtas intended that such a non-national employee automatically commits and offence if he or she does not have a work permit irrespective of the reasons for that failure and that this has implications as far as the civil law is concerned in that such a contract of employment must also be taken to be void." I believe that influenced the Minister about changing the law. The Minister's reply continued: "The question that arises for policy makers is to what extent such non-nationals should be dissuaded from working illegally in Ireland by virtue of there being a statutory offence to do so versus to what extent should certain employment rights protect vulnerable people who find themselves unwittingly in such employment positions."

That is the dilemma that has faced both the last Government and this Government since 2004, when we opened our labour market to the new EU states. At the same time, we put in place certain restrictions relating to people from non-EU areas who wished to work in this country. I am a former emigrant and would not wish there to be any barriers put before emigrants leaving their homes to find gainful employment because they could not find it at home. However, there must be a realisation that we are in a severe economic downturn and restrictions must be put in place. I have no difficulty with restrictions that are fair and valid. This case is not about that. This was about somebody who genuinely believed that he was coming to this country with a work permit and was then exploited. What is sad and, incidentally, not unique, given the Irish experience, is that it was a family member who exploited him. I can tell his family that this is not unique. From the perspective of my experience as an Irish emigrant, it was mainly Irish employers and sometimes family-owned Irish companies that exploited both family members and fellow Irish workers. That took place both in England and America.

Finally, in the few seconds available to me I must once again highlight, in the wider context, the need for the Irish Government to continue to press for meaningful immigration reform for undocumented Irish people in the United States. Many of the rights we are discussing in this legislation do not apply to undocumented Irish in the US. They are treated as illegal and if they contravene domestic law and are discovered as a result, they are immediately deported. These are people who are living, working and have raised families in the United States. I am from Leitrim but the Minister of State, who is from Donegal, is fully aware of this. I believe there is a change of sentiment in the US as a result of the re-election of President Obama. The Republicans now realise that if they are to have a political future, they cannot continue to alienate ethnic minorities. From that point of view, timing is everything and we should now press ahead with this. I hope the Minister will state in his response that the Government will continue to maintain the momentum that previous Governments adopted to ensure that we look after the human rights of our citizens abroad who were obliged to leave this country, for no reason other than economic circumstances.