An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

I remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to discussion of an amendment. Each amendment must be seconded.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Government amendment No. 1:

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

In page 3, line 9, to delete "TO" and substitute "IN RESPECT OF".

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a drafting amendment for consistency and clarity.

Amendment agreed to.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 13 to 16.

This amendment deletes the penalty on indictment of up to ten years' imprisonment or a €250,000 fine for an employer employing a non-national without a work permit. I agree with the Government move to make it illegal to employ a non-national without a work permit and to bring in a penalty, but this penalty is heavy-handed. The Government should put a proper green card system in place before introducing such heavy-handed penalties. These penalties are unfair because an employer could be caught by this provision, despite the fact that such an employer might not have set out to exploit a non-national.

We know from newspaper reports that those who are exploited have often been employed under the work permit system. Huge improvements need to be made to our immigration system. We need an overall framework which allows people in according to our labour market needs but which allows them to apply for different jobs rather than being indentured to one employer. There should not be restrictions on moving from one job to another. Other situations need to be improved, such as the length of time it takes to get a work permit and our treatment of illegal residents, because people would then not abuse the system out of need. It would be at that point that we could be heavy-handed in terms of the penalties involved.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment on the basis that the fine could, in some circumstances, prove excessive. The owner of a small shop or guesthouse in a rural area might inadvertently employ someone illegally. I agree with the thrust of the Bill, but this penalty could prove exorbitant in the case of an inadvertent offence.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I am aware of the dangers of hoax permits, I also understand the sentiments of Senators Coghlan and Tuffy on this issue. I assume employers who make an error will be able to use this as a defence against being fined the huge sum of €250,000. I ask the Minister of State to put my mind at rest.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do Senators Tuffy and Coghlan want to reward employers? They have made no provision to restrict employers taking on employees without work permits.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, that is not in the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment proposes to delete the most important provision in the section which addresses penalties. Does the Senator propose to reward employers who take on employees without a permit?

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, the amendment proposes to delete one of the penalties. It would not interfere with the offence or the smaller penalty but delete the greater penalty. It does not propose to reward employers who employ people without a permit.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposed lines to be deleted—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

The Senator must speak to the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Senator to clarify the proposal to delete lines 13 to 16 on page 4.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Leyden likes to—

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment proposes to delete lines 13 to 16.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposal relates to part of the section.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Senators may only speak to the amendment once.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was seeking clarification. The section is very important.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach:

Is the Senator speaking to the amendment?

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. Senator Quinn made a good point. If an employer unknowingly employed a person on the basis of a good quality hoax permit, he would have a good defence. The Government and the Department are not seeking to trap employers. The section amounts to a stark warning to employers not to employ people without proper permits. It is vital these restrictions are enforced. Otherwise we can throw out the Bill and abandon efforts to enforce legislation on permits. While I accept the maximum fine of €250,000 is high, I support it.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only issuing authority for a permit is the Department which issues a permit in the name of the employer. It is unlikely an employer will inadvertently receive a hoax permit. Hoax permits are black and white copies of the original green, stamped form. I have seen them and it is obvious they are photocopies of doctored permits. An employer can only receive a permit if he or she has applied to the Department for one.

The Minister could take steps to remove much of the fraud in this area. I fail to understand, for example, the reason it takes six weeks to get a permit. The application form is a four page document which requires limited information on matters such as the name of the company and the employee. The six weeks required to process applications has generated an industry in hoax documents.

During the debate on the Refugee Bill in the House the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spoke on the issue of asylum. Asylum applications are now processed in less than six weeks, yet much more information must be supplied, linguists are required to interpret and so forth. The Department's resources should be focused on reducing the time required to process an application. This would ensure employers would no longer seek ways to circumvent the regulations when they urgently require employees. Many employers cannot afford to wait for six weeks, not to speak of the four weeks they must wait once they have advertised a position with FÁS, to fill a vacancy, especially if the position is unskilled or for a short period, for instance, 12 months. I ask the Minister to address this issue.

There is only one issuing authority. Employers do not receive permits in the post from bodies or individuals other than the Department. Persons in possession of a permit not issued by the Department will be breaking the law once this Bill which proposes to eliminate the industry in fraudulent permits once and for all is enacted.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Employers found to have false permits will have recourse to the law. If there was subterfuge which had led an employer to inadvertently employ a person without a permit, it would become apparent and the person in question would have a firm claim in law which would be upheld by the courts. I fully support these punitive measures which are being introduced to safeguard workers against employers who seek to exploit them by failing to comply with the provisions of the legislation. That is the least we can do.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the business of the courts to decide on the level of fine in individual cases. Instances of employers committing a single offence would normally be dealt with by summary conviction in the District Court where fines not in excess of €3,000 would be imposed.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment relates to the larger fines.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am responding to the points Senators made. There is a criminal industry in which, as I stated, well organised criminal gangs knowingly exploit the workforce. These gangs earn much of their profits on the backs of illegal workers. The level of fine in the Bill is required as a deterrent and will be imposed on indictment in the Circuit Court. The penalty must be sufficient to deter individuals in the business of exploiting illegal workers.

Genuine employers who make mistakes, are careless or commit a first offence will have recourse to the defence mechanism set out in section 2(4). We have been careful to ensure a proper balance, part of which is the deterrent effect of the significant fines.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, 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".

I have reintroduced the amendment because I still believe it would be better to have a framework under which citizens of future accession countries would be allowed to work here without a work permit and without the need for new legislation to be introduced beforehand. It would be much better if we had an overall framework and comprehensive legislation on this issue. Our approach in the Bill and on the wider issue of immigration is too reliant on crisis management. We need a much more comprehensive framework for our immigration and work permit laws. We also need to be much more confident and less ambiguous about what we want in this regard. The refusal of the Government to accept the amendment shows it has mixed feelings about accession and the Nice treaty it promoted.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This matter was dealt with adequately on Committee Stage. It is better not to anticipate the views of applicant countries. Many steps have to be taken before we increase the number of countries involved and there will be ample opportunity to bring forward amending legislation to allow for that expansion. There will also be an opportunity for the Department to review the operation of the Bill at that stage. There is merit in not accepting Senator Tuffy's amendment, although I understand the point she is trying to make. She appears to be anticipating that her party will be in Government at some future time and acceptance of the amendment will avoid the necessity of it having to bring a Bill before the House.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One never knows.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Senator Leyden said, it would be foolhardy to tie the hands of any Government in the context of what may or may not happen in the future. The acceptance of the amendment would not only mean including the states not covered by the treaty of accession, but it would also make reference to instruments that do not yet exist. This would not make any sense. The provisions of those instruments may be entirely different from those contained in the accession treaty. We would be providing for a situation, therefore, which could be quite different in the future, which would not be in the best interests of the State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 15 to 28.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 3. I welcome the Government's move to allow people from the accession countries to come here and obtain employment without work permits from 2004. The subsections I wish to delete are unnecessary. I returned to the country this afternoon, having been away for a few days, and I do not know anything about the Central Bank report.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is only doom and gloom because that is all they talk about.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Tuffy, without interruption.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree that we have to be cautious about our economy and monitor it, but we also need continued growth and additional employees. Our concern should be that we will not be sufficiently competitive. To be competitive, however, we need employees from other countries. Employees here would confirm that and I am sure they believe the Government is being overly cautious as regards this legislation. If our economy experiences a significant downturn, it will be because we lost an opportunity. It will not be the fault of the people from the new EU countries if our economy fails. We can deal with problems in our economy by ensuring that we increase our competitiveness, allow employees to come here to work for employers, invest in research, development and education, train our employees, study our labour market needs and put a proper green card system in place. That is the way we should approach this issue.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment being seconded?

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. In terms of the Central Bank warning, I already welcomed the Minister's position in this regard as a necessary safety measure.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A proper structure.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment has not been not seconded and cannot be proceeded with. It is, therefore negatived.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State and his staff for the excellent work they put into the Bill. I also thank the Ministers of State, Deputies Michael Ahern and John Browne, who were involved in the Second Stage debate. I compliment the Minister of State and his officials on bringing forward the Committee Stage and Report Stage amendments so promptly.

I may have reservations in regard to particular sections but I welcome the general thrust of the Bill. Time will prove if Members were right or wrong in that regard. We cannot predict the future with any certainty, particularly when one considers what is happening currently on the world stage. As a former Minister of State for trade, I always favoured developing trade and expanding industry so I cannot be considered reactionary in this regard.

The Seanad has a meaningful role and those of us on this side of the Chamber welcome different views on any Bill. I support the legislation and the points made by Members will be reconsidered by the Minister in the future if it requires amendment.

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House. My interest, and I am sure it is that of every other Member, concerns Ireland incorporated. I am not in any way racist because I welcome the lovely change in the environment in this country.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to be associated with the words of thanks to the Minister of State and his staff with regard to the Bill. I am glad Senator Leyden is happy about everything again because at the outset I thought there was a bit of internal opposition on the Government side of the House. It appears, however, that matters have been worked out by the Senator and the Leader.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Friendships have been restored.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should speak through the Chair.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise, I did not mean to be discourteous to the Cathaoirleach but the smile on the Leader's face was somehow attractive. I am glad everything is all right on the opposite side of the House, and I thank the Minister of State.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State and his staff on the Bill. I was delighted to see the Bill being introduced in this House and I welcome the manner in which it was dealt with. Concerns were expressed on all sides of the House. The Minister and his staff listened to these and, as a result, this is good legislation from which the country will benefit.

Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State and the various Senators who contributed to the debate on the Bill. I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, subject to the points I made during the debate and the amendments I brought forward. I also thank the staff of the House for dealing with my Report Stage amendments so speedily.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to be associated with the remarks made about the Minister and his staff in regard to the Bill. I want to record this country's appreciation of the people who come here, their work ethic and the major contribution they make and will continue to make to this economy over the coming years.

Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senators for their co-operation in the passage of this Bill. It is a good Bill because it is balanced and opens up the labour market in the State to the applicant countries and that is the image we want to portray in those countries. It also provides a safeguard in the event of a significant economic downturn.

The enlargement of the EU provides significant opportunities for the State. We are on the periphery of Europe and we have yet to realise the opportunities for economic development that exist through the expansion of Irish business influence, particularly in the small and medium enterprise sector, in eastern Europe. The Bill provides the ability to develop a multinational structure similar to that developed here by the United States since the 1960s and it is vital that we display a good European image to the applicant countries where we would like to build such a structure.