Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 135: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 239 of 6 October 2010, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the British Government opted into Directive 2003/9/EC on the right to work of asylum seekers without any apparent implications for the common travel area; in view of this, to explain the reason he believes that the common travel area would be affected by Ireland opting into Directive 2009/52/EC or otherwise adopting measures to ensure that rogue employers who exploit undocumented workers would have to pay them. [37020/10]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Each EU instrument has to be considered on its merits, including any Common Travel Area concerns that might arise and the outcome of those considerations in respect of one Directive does not necessarily bear on that for subsequent unrelated instruments.

I refer the Deputy to my answer to Parliamentary Question 142 of 13 May 2010 in which I set out the primary reason why Ireland did not participate in the adoption and application of the Directive 2003/9/EC. In particular, the Government was concerned that by extending the right to work to asylum seekers would have a profoundly negative impact on application numbers, as was experienced in the aftermath of the July 1999 decision to do so. This concern would exist irrespective of the position of the UK on the measure.

Directive 2009/52/EC in contrast concerns illegal immigration. This is an area where there is always a risk of displacement of illegal workers who by their very nature will be much more mobile in terms of moving between countries.