Seanad debates
Tuesday, 1 April 2003
Employment Permits Bill 2003: Committee Stage.
2:30 pm
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This section provides that a non-national may not take up or be in employment in the State in the absence of a permit issued by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It creates offences for non-compliance by an employer or an employee and provides for penalties where such an offence occurs. It also sets out the categories for non-nationals to which the requirement for an employment permit does not apply.
It provides a legal basis for the operation of Community preference should a requirement for employment permits for nationals of new member states be re-imposed under section 3.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fahey, and his officials to the House. I have certain concerns about the Bill. I feel we should look at the realities as they pertain to the country now as opposed to what pertained during the campaign for the second Nice treaty referendum leading to the decision by the Irish people on the expansion of Europe.
This Bill proposes to grant immediate access to the Irish labour market from 4 May 2004 without any restrictions on the applicant states. This does not apply to many of our partners in Europe. Germany will grant no freedom of access after enlargement, with an initial review after the first two years of transition. Austria will offer no immediate freedom of access. Belgium and Finland will provide freedom of access after a transition period of two years. Portugal will use the transition period to negotiate bilaterally with accession countries. Italy will negotiate bilaterally with accession states. France will give freedom of access following enlargement with some restrictions in specific sectors. Ireland, Denmark, Greece, Sweden, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are providing full freedom of access to labour markets immediately after enlargement.
Anybody raising any issue with people applying for employment permits is in danger of being accused of being racist or of not wishing to expand the European Union. I make no apologies for speaking on behalf of the Irish people looking for employment in their own country. For far too long we had to go abroad and seek permits in the United States of America. We had free access to the United Kingdom, which was very welcome, and its citizens had freedom to work here.
The number of applicants should meet the number of vacancies in any particular area. That is the advantage of the permits system that pertains today. As it stands, many citizens from applicant countries are in the State under the permits system. That will continue to be the case prior to 4 May 2004. Bulgaria has approximately 1,000 citizens here. Last year work permits were issued to 518 people, most of whom are employed in service industries and there are some railway workers. In 2001, ten work authorisations were issued for ICT professionals and two for engineers. There is a relatively small number of people here from Cyprus. There are approximately 2,000 people here from the Czech Republic, 1,700 from Estonia, 700 from Hungary and 5,500 from Latvia.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They are working in the mushroom industry.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In 2001, some 4,365 work permits issued, many to people in the service and agri-business sectors. In 2001 the highest number of immigrants came from Latvia. In 2001, the number of work permits issued to people from Lithuania was 2,909. Many of these are employed in the hotel and catering industries. There is a relatively small number of people here from Malta and approximately 3,500 from Poland.
Approximately 20,000 people have come here from Romania. While many of these have work permits, some are here illegally. Last year 1,776 work permits were issued. Included in the figure of 20,000 are approximately 2,000 from the Roma community. While other Romanians here are employed in the service sectors, last year 51 working visas were issued to ICT professionals, nine to architects and ten to construction engineers.
Although the Bill provides that the Minister may trip a safety mechanism affecting people from accession countries within the two-year transition period, this should be activated from the very start. We have a liberal administration as far as permits are concerned. People have the right to apply and there needs to be a very good reason for them to be refused. The only reason for refusal should be the lack of employment opportunity. If we allow for the opening of the market on 4 May 2004 it is likely there will not be vacancies at that time.
There are major concerns currently. The Small Firms Association, a very reputable organisation, issued a statement yesterday that there would be a slow down in the creation of jobs in 2004. Many of its members have availed of the permits system, which has been extremely beneficial to our exports drive. In areas like my county, Roscommon, there are many people from South America engaged in the food processing industry, particularly the poultry industry. They are filling jobs which are not being filled by the native population who are not interested in them. That skilled labour comes from outside the European Union and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is rightly issuing permits. The employers are getting tremendous workers and are maintaining and increasing exports. They are making a major contribution to our economy. However, we cannot predict what the future will bring.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister of State and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment that the Bill gives them an opportunity to provide a set of regulations governing the 4 May 2004 deadline in order that there would not be open and free access into Ireland from the applicant countries but rather a transitional period from that date because we need to evaluate the effects of the numbers coming. During the Nice treaty referendum campaign some said the country would be flooded with immigrants from the 15 applicant countries while others said that was untrue and that there would be no substantial number.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am speaking on the use of the words "grant" and "granting" which are important. The former alone is the key to the Bill.
The Bill is generally worthy and satisfactory in its restrictions on businesses employing people without permits. However, if amendments are not made on Report Stage to provide for a mechanism to restrict numbers from the 15 applicant countries, boatloads will arrive in Dublin Port within two days of 4 May 2004. It is well known throughout Europe that we have the most welcoming, beneficial and hospitable environment for people from abroad – rightly so – but at what cost? We must bear in mind that the people concerned will be entitled to all the services, facilities and social welfare benefits available in the State.
I do not want to sound reactionary because I am not. I have welcomed those who have come to my area and played an important role. We are talking about the expansion of the European Union and opportunities in the marketplace. From 2004 we should only admit as many as are needed to fill the vacancies unfilled by Irish people. We cannot have a situation where 2,000 extra are required in the construction industry and 10,000 non-nationals come to Ireland to take up those jobs. In that case some 8,000 would be left in the State, relying on the system which would have to support them. I am not being a prophet of doom but with a war raging in Iraq we do not know what the world order or the price of oil will be and there may be a crisis if the war is prolonged.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I disagree with Senator Leyden's points and his proposal. I welcomed this Bill on Second Stage when I said it should go further rather than have a safety clause in section 3, subsections (3) and (4), which I will seek to delete on Report Stage. The Senator's suggestions are absurd. There will not be a flood of people into Ireland from accession countries in 2004. He is contradicting everything the Minister said on Second Stage as well as the Government's view that the economy is still healthy despite the slow-down. There are no signs we will need to use the safety clause or be cautious in the manner suggested by the Senator. The Minister said that previous experience had not shown that there would be a flood of people into Ireland from applicant countries when the 2004 provisions took effect. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats need to decide what their story is on the economy – it is either healthy or it is not. On the one hand, we are told community employment schemes are no longer necessary and, on the other, the Government is being cautious and worried about the matter.
The Senator says he is worried about people flooding in from the accession countries in 2004 but I am more worried that we ensure our economy remains healthy by investing in education, research and development and indigenous industry while retaining foreign investment. If we do not do so, we are more likely to experience the situation the Senator outlined. It is on that we should be concentrating. Our fears should focus on the possibility that the accession countries will be more competitive than us because they, too, have educated workforces and will attract inward investment.
The people voted for the Treaty of Nice because they wanted to be more open towards the accession countries. If we are to be open, we must be so in every sense – interacting with people socially, in employment and culturally. Ireland should have a green card system similar to that in operation in the United States to deal with immigration.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will speak on the issue to which Senator Leyden referred, the use of the word "grant". Far be it from me to have a disagreement with my dear friend but that is what I will have because I do not agree with the points he made. It is highly improbable that huge numbers will be waiting to come to Ireland on 4 May 2004. All of those living in the accession countries will be seeking to make their own countries profitable and develop exports in order that they can flourish in their own right. All things being equal, who would want to travel to another land all of a sudden? It is a highly improbable tale.
We are either for the European Union or we are not. While we have succeeded in adopting the Nice treaty, we cannot be pro-European Union in one part of our public life and anti in another because it does not make sense to hold such a view. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in her Second Stage speech and a recent radio interview, affirmed that the Government would watch the labour market. It is understandable that we would not wish available jobs to be taken up but the Department and the Minister will keep a watch on the market and if there is a disturbance or it becomes lop-sided or skewed, the necessary measures will be taken – this is common sense. A watching brief will be held between now and May 2004 to see how our markets and those of the accession countries are performing in order that reasonable estimates may be made about how many might wish to come to Ireland.
The European project is a noble one, whereby people from different cultures come together to mix and work freely and adapt to one another. Irish people emigrated to the United States, Australia and other countries where they did the hard physical work. They worked because they were able to and wanted to gain a foothold. The accession countries are proud of the fact that they have progressed so far that they are eligible for admission to the European Union. When I canvassed for the Nice treaty, I made the point that it was an open and generous way to respond to the demands of Europe. In years to come our society will greatly benefit from the cultures it will have absorbed. They will add to our culture and modern history.
Senator Leyden means well and we are lucky to have people with such determined views. However, I have an equally determined view that these measures are reasonable. They will facilitate access. The legislation includes a mechanism whereby the Minister and the Department can monitor market forces in this country and whether unemployment is rising.
I am aware of the number coming to this country; I know many of them. Senator Leyden said there were 5,000 Latvians here. Without them there would not be a mushroom industry. That industry is a huge element in our agricultural exports. I know one of those involved quite well. The industry could not survive without the Latvians who have made it their niche. They work hard and send money home. It is the same story again, history repeating itself. They are sending money home and helping their people. They work hard and the industry, in turn, contributes to Ireland's economic well being. While I respect Senator Leyden's right to say what he wishes, I do not agree with him.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Leas-Chathaoirleach was most generous to Senator Leyden. I did not realise one could waffle so much about the word "granted".
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should concentrate on the amendment.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish the Senator had done so. The Minister proposes to remove the word "granted". I am more in tune with the arguments made by the Leader of the House and Senator Tuffy. We are trying to be good Europeans but Senator Leyden sounded like he almost regretted that we had passed the Nice treaty. However, I must be generous. I am sure that, as the Leader of the House said, the Senator means well. She would be a better judge of him than me. Perhaps they will reconcile their differences satisfactorily over dinner later.
I welcome the section because it remedies the current legal defect.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am discussing section 2 which allows a charge to be brought against an employer.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes. That amendment relates to section 2. I welcome the amendment and agree with the arguments made by the Leader of the House and Senator Tuffy.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are cognate to amendment No. 2, amendments Nos. 3 and 7 are consequential on amendments Nos. 6 and 8 and amendment No. 5 is related. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 together? Agreed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
Government amendment No. 2:
An Leas-Chathaoirleach:
In page 4, subsection (3)(a), line 10, to delete "or to" and substitute "or".
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a drafting amendment containing a deletion to the present text as section 2(1) provides that an employment permit is an employment permit granted by the Minister. The term "employment permit" does not need to be further qualified in subsection (2) of that section.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My view is that the Seanad offers Members an opportunity to debate a Bill and amendments. It is not necessary for everybody to sing from the same hymn sheet. I support the Bill. The triple mechanism is there for the Minister. I welcome a debate on this issue because none of us can prophesy what will happen after that point in time.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Committee Stage offers an opportunity for everybody to put their view across. At the end of the day we will agree to the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (3)(a), line 11, to delete "to".
Amendment agreed to.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (3), lines 13 to 16, to delete paragraph (b).
The purpose of the amendment is to delete the penalty on indictment in relation to the offence of employing a non-national without a work permit. We discussed this issue in the context of the Immigration Bill. This provision is heavy-handed. I do not agree with the imposition of a penalty. It is necessary to prohibit the employment of non-nationals without work permits but this penalty is heavy-handed. There are situations where employers would and have employed non-nationals without necessarily setting out to exploit them.
Before imposing such heavy-handed penalties, we need to do far more in terms of having an overall framework for immigration. I previously suggested the introduction of a green card system, along the lines proposed by the Labour Party. If there was a proper system, there would be fewer cases of people trying to abuse it. One could be heavy-handed then. At present, however, many could get into this situation without necessarily setting out to abuse the system and without being exploitative. The provision is heavy-handed.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
While the Senator means well, I do not agree with the amendment. Part of a proper structure is the imposition of fines on those who do not obey the law. We cannot, on the one hand, welcome people from the accession countries by establishing a proper framework and then not fine those who seek to exploit them. That is what would happen. If people are brought to this country without going through proper procedures, they will be exploited. They will not be paid proper wages or given proper conditions of employment. Their rights will not be safeguarded. The fine is a safety bolthole, as it were, to deal with those who would be exploitative. That is the reason I heartily approve of it.
Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have used the permit system and seen how it can be abused. There is a huge market in forged permits. I presume the Minister is well aware of that. With such a draconian system in place, employers are already aware that this legislation is serious and that they had better not mess around with it. I welcome the legislation because it will be so strong that people will not contravene it once it is enacted.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I disagree with Senator Tuffy's amendment. I am quite surprised that the Labour Party wants this section deleted because I thought it would want the fines to be increased.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They had it in the Immigration Bill, did they not?
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is going to be tough, but we have to have controls in this regard. Permits are important and there would be no point in having the system if people were to be employed without proper certification. The Minister is right to have retained that in the Bill.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a new offence. Are we saying that someone who employed a person without a permit before now was guilty of a serious offence? I do not necessarily think they were and I am surprised that the Government believes they were. I have no problem with this new offence being created, I am merely pointing out that the penalty is heavy-handed. There is no contradiction in me, as a Labour Party Senator, saying that; I am as much pro-business as anybody else, but people must be treated fairly.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I did not refer to Senator Tuffy personally.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Employers have hired people without permits, but they did not necessarily set out to exploit them. I would have thought the Government knew that.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know of some people who have exploited others in this regard, but the Bill will provide the proper legislative framework on what should and should not be done. That is why I believe the fines are appropriate.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The amendment is opposed because its effect would be to treat as only a minor offence every instance where an employer engaged the services of a non-national in breach of employment permit regulations or requirements. The purpose behind the provision penalising employers is to correct the legal imbalance that currently exists between the employer and the employee when it comes to the law on employment of non-nationals. At present, the employee is liable to prosecution but the employer escapes without any sanction. The culpability of the employer in many of these cases is likely to be greater, given that the employer who takes on the person to work illegally holds most of the advantages over the employee in this relationship.
If the person works off the books, as it were, he or she can remain invisible to the authorities. The unscrupulous employer can take advantage of the non-national's legal status to, for example, literally save on costs such as wages and insurance and ignore the law of the land in respect of employment conditions and health and safety in the workplace. The illegal employee, on the other hand, can live under a regime of virtual servitude, with the constant threat of being uncovered by the authorities or revealed to those authorities by an employer who no longer needs his or her services or as a punishment for some perceived wrong.
One should not underestimate the negative influence for the individual in society posed by those who knowingly exploit their workforce in this way. Such exploitation is well organised and run by criminal gangs which earn much more of their profits on the backs of their illegal workforce. There are also negative economic effects on the domestic labour force, members of which may be denied the prospect of competing for certain jobs because of the illegal employment of foreign workers. We, therefore, deem the level of fines to be necessary.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will withdraw it at this stage and resubmit it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (3)(b), line 13, to delete "the offence is" and substitute "the offence is an offence consisting of".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (3)(b), line 14, to delete "or to" and substitute "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 4, subsection (3)(b), line 15, to delete "to".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (8), line 5, to delete "or to" and substitute "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 5, subsection (12), line 30, to delete "hereby".
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a drafting amendment as the word "hereby" is considered to be superfluous.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, subsection (1)(b), line 10, to delete "Treaty" and substitute "Act".
We believe that the proper terminology is "Act of accession" not "Treaty of accession". I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on that point.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
These amendments are opposed. The Bill has been drafted based on the conditions of the treaty of accession, which has not yet been signed, and the powers it confers on member states to implement their own national measures and legislation to deal with labour market access once accession takes place. When it has been ratified by all of the relevant countries, this State will have to pass an Act in order to transpose the treaty into domestic law. Until such time, the treaty shall not be referred to as an Act. The Bill before us cannot be based on an Act that does not yet exist. Accordingly, I would ask the Senator to withdraw both amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 14, after "Slovak Republic" to insert "and any other state which, after the passing of this Act, becomes party to an instrument whereby it accedes to membership of the European Union".
The purpose of this amendment is to allow any state to enjoy the advantages of the provisions of this Bill, which, after the passing of this Act, becomes party to an instrument whereby it accedes to membership of the European Union. It would seem sensible to deal with future members of the EU as well as the ten scheduled to join next year since that would avoid the need for further legislation. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's comments.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All applicant states may not have completed their agreements with the European Union before the relevant date, so we should stick to the numbers currently on the list without expanding it any further. It would be easy to amend the legislation and it would also present an opportunity to review it.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The amendment is opposed. The treaty of accession negotiated between the current EU member states and the ten countries that are due to accede to the European Union in 2004 provides that member states shall apply their own national measures regarding labour market access for at least the first two years following accession in respect of the nationals of eight of these countries, namely, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The treaty of accession provides that the nationals of Malta and Cyprus shall be accorded full labour market access from the date of accession. Ireland's national measures consist of granting labour market access to the nationals of the eight aforementioned states once accession takes place.
The purpose of section 3 is to give legislative effect to those measures by providing for an exemption from the requirement for an employment permit for the nationals of these states, should they wish to take up employment in the State. The section has regard to the parties of the treaty of accession. The acceptance of the proposed amendment would not only mean including states that are not covered by the treaty of accession, but it would also make reference to instruments that do not yet exist and the provisions of which may be entirely different to those contained in the current accession treaty.
To accept the amendment would be to tie down the Government's future policy in the area of labour market access following accession. While full labour market access is being granted to the eight accession states in question in this instance, this may not always be the case for future EU enlargements depending on a number of unforeseeable facts which include, but are not limited to, the prevailing labour market situation at the time of accession. If the amendment were accepted, we would be obliged to grant full labour market access after accession in future instances regardless of the factors that may need to be taken into account. Accordingly, I ask the Senator to withdraw it.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Minister of State and the Government are being overly cautious in rejecting my amendment. Our concern should be that people from the accession countries may not come here to work. This problem could face employers in the future. The Government should listen more intently to what employers say on the issue of work permits.
I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage which will propose the deletion of subsections (3), (4) and (5) because there should not be a safety clause in the Bill. Having regard to the nationals of countries we will allow to work here without work permits in 2004, we should not insert such a safety clause. Such a provision is one for consideration in the future. We should not insert a provision to provide for a position which could be reversed in a few years' time.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are speaking at cross purposes. The Bill strikes a good balance. I do not like using the work "generous" in this sense because it sounds patronising but the Bill is generous in its welcoming approach to nationals from the accession countries. In the same vein, it is cautious in its punitive provision whereby employers must pay a fair fine if they are found to be in breach of the law, with which I fully agree. I also agree with the point that we cannot make plans now for a country which in the interim may decide to push its case for accession and be successful. We will amend the Bill at that point if it needs amending. It is far too anticipatory to seek to insert a provision covering circumstances when we do not know what that they will be or what countries will seek accession.
I am familiar with legislation and this Bill is a good mix of what is possible, what we should be doing in terms of our European duties and provides for keeping a watch on employers and employees. I note the Senator will table a similar amendment on Report Stage but I wished to make this contribution lest I would not be here or have an opportunity to intervene later.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 16, after "a" to insert "significant".
My colleagues and I believe there should be some limit to the parameters under which the Minister can impose permit requirements. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's comments on this amendment.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I reiterate that I am very much in favour of having the triple mechanism in place from day one. I hope I am getting this message across, although perhaps I am not.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator has said that often enough.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The two Senators are cosying up to one another again.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is an important section. I note Senator Tuffy is saying that there should be no safeguard in place and that the Department and the Minister should have no way of checking the position to ascertain the numbers coming here. From day one there should be a careful assessment of the numbers applying for permits. That is all I am saying. Perhaps I am wrong but time will tell. Nobody can predict what will happen in the future. The war is ongoing in Iraq and we do not know what will happen in world markets in 2004. It is right for the Minister to have a facility in place whereby he or she can assess the number of applicants applying for permits and match them with the number of vacancies. Does that not sound logical? If we need a certain number of employees to maintain our development, expansion, exports and the development of service industries, people can come here to fill those vacancies but we should not have an excess. The permit system, the triple mechanism, is a good way of ensuring we get the numbers to fill the vacancies.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know what the war in Iraq has to do with this. It is a red herring. While it is an important issue, it is not relevant to the Bill. Having regard to what the Senator said, I wonder if we are afraid of the accession countries. I met two Latvian parliamentarians at an event I attended yesterday and they would model themselves on Ireland. Latvia is ambitious and wants to be confident about its position. It will be the same as any other EU country but why are we treating such countries differently or why do we have a fear about them? If we were to follow the logic of what Senator Leyden said, perhaps we should be bring back restrictions in relation to other EU countries. Perhaps we should be concerned about the French, Germans and so on. The mantra of the Government is that the economy is healthy and that we need people to come here.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If we listen to what the Central Bank is saying, that is changing a little.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is a good deal of confusion in the Government about the state of the economy.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps that is what is causing Senator Leyden to be gloomy.
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Do we regret the passing of the referendum on the Nice treaty?
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is a positive move to allow the people concerned to work here and contribute to our lives. I hope we will do likewise in their countries. We are already contributing to their economies in terms of investment. Senator Leyden's fears are unfounded. I disagree with what he said.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This amendment is opposed. Subsection (6) provides that "disturbance" shall be construed in accordance with the treaty of accession. Annex 6 of the treaty of accession provides for the possibility, up to the end of the seventh year following accession, of labour market access being suspended when a member state undergoes or foresees disturbances in its labour market which could seriously threaten the standard of living or level of employment in a given region or occupation.
The word "significant" contained in this amendment is not clarified, nor is it referred to anywhere in the treaty of accession in respect of a labour market disturbance. To introduce it here would not only be unnecessary it would also mean straying from the provisions of the accession treaty in which section 3 of the Bill is grounded. The Senators who tabled this amendment are perhaps concerned that an order reintroducing the need for employment permits should be made only under subsection (3) of this section where the threat to the labour market was a significant and real one. The above should reassure them that this is not the case.
With regard to Senator Leyden's comments, the ethos of the European Union is geared towards the free movement of goods, services and people. I do not subscribe to the argument that we should set the number of work permits at the number of job opportunities. With a liberal regime in place in respect of work permits in recent years, a total of only 13,754 nationals from the accession countries were granted work permits and, of those, the vast majority came from Latvia and Lithuania – 3,958 and 3,816, respectively. Therefore, there is no reason to believe large numbers will come here.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A mistake is made in mixing up refugees and people from the accession countries granted a work permit. I am not referring to the Minister of State. That is where the mistake is made but this is a proper thought out procedure.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Spain, Greece, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands are putting the same regime in place. This indicates that most European states, with the exception of Germany and Austria which are immediately adjacent to a number of the applicant countries, are prepared to give an opportunity to people from those countries to have freedom of movement. Safeguards are there if required and they do not need to be any more significant than at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 6, subsection (5), line 27, after "may" to insert "by order".
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The provisions in section 3 exempt people from the eight accession states referred to from the need, as laid down by the treaty of accession, to obtain employment permits in order to enter into or be in employment in the State during the transition period. Under subsection (3), the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment may, by order, reinstate the requirement for employment permits in the event of disturbances in the domestic labour market.
This is, in effect, a safeguard clause which allows access to the labour market to be regulated during the transitional period. If the labour market suffers an unexpected or severe shock, subsection (5) would give the Minister the power to revoke or amend such an order made within the timeframe of the transitional period. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that in a case where the reintroduction of a requirement for employment permits was later to be reversed, this reversal would also need to be based on an order made by the Minister.
Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome this amendment, which goes a long way towards satisfying my concerns about the Bill. It is interesting that Germany and Austria, two very strong economies, have concerns that are not shared by any other Members of the Seanad. I may be in good company with Germany and Austria, two excellent countries and great trading partners. They want no freedom of access after enlargement, with an initial review after the first two years of the transitional period. Is that not a lovely provision? Germany and Austria are two powerful countries. One would feel Germany wants to expand and create jobs, as it is the primary funding country of the European Union. If I have concerns, I am in very good company.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I agree with this safety measure. We have had the warnings in the Central Bank report about the considerable slowdown in growth and employment. This safety measure is necessary. Senator Tuffy referred to the mantra of the Government, but we will hear a lot less of it and I suspect it is about to be abolished. I agree with the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
TITLE.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
These are drafting changes to the Long Title of the Bill. The parliamentary counsel has indicated a preference for the revised version of the Long Title in amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which replace the terms "PROVIDING" and "GRANTING" with "TO PROVIDE" and "GRANT". This is line with consistency in drafting. I will also be introducing another amendment to the Long Title on Report Stage which is a drafting amendment for clarity and consistency with the first section of the Long Title. That amendment will be circulated shortly.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 3, line 9, to delete "GRANTING" and substitute "GRANT".
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.