Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2003

Vol. 564 No. 3

Employment Permits Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ring.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am delighted to speak on this important Bill. The perception of work permits is something at which we should look. The Minister indicated that 36,000 permits have been issued. How many workers does that represent? Some employees have three or four permits so it does not follow that we are talking about 36,000 people. How many overseas workers are working in this country? There is a level of double accounting which can cause a problem.

The Minister indicated that 36,000 permits had been issued last year but, in some cases, an employee can have three permits. It is important to clarify this because people will say those who are getting permits are taking jobs from Irish people. The issuing of work permits is very worthwhile and creates a healthy and competitive economy which is what the Minister is looking for. These people are doing jobs which Irish people will not do. When the Minister goes on radio and says she has issued 36,000 work permits, the listener assumes they have been issued to 36,000 people, but that is not the case. The Minister should say there are 20,000 people with 36,000 permits. I know a case where an employee has three permits. That is a point which the Mini ster should clarify because the wrong impression is being given and people looking for jobs think foreigners are taking their jobs. The double accounting in the system is wrong. I am amazed this has not been explained before.

How many of those permits are renewals? We could be talking about the same 36,000 people in that a considerable proportion of those permits could be renewals. How many foreign workers are working in this country? Last year the Minister said she granted 40,000 work permits. Are we talking about the same people, duplication and double accounting? That is an issue at which the Minister should look.

I refer to the cost to employers of renewing work permits. Of the 36,000 permits granted, I believe renewals comprise half that figure. The cost to employers has increased by 500%. If a job cannot be filled by an Irish employee, the cost to the employer of renewing a work permit should be considerably less. An employer with a factory employing 20 people must pay €8,000 or €9,000 to renew a work permit.

Although there are rogue employers who are taking advantage, the majority of employers who avail of work permits are well intentioned and are bringing in people who are creating a competitive workplace. If we do not have a competitive economy, employers will not survive. It is not a case of people employing people because they are cheap, they are employing people because they are skilled and are prepared to do a particular job. What I am saying may be different from what other Deputies have stated but the impression created by the media that 36,000 work permits have been granted to that number of individuals, and the double accounting in the Department where one employee can have four permits is wrong. The figure is considerably less.

There is no cheap labour in this country since the introduction of the minimum wage, which is effective. There has been a 50% to 60% reduction in the number of employers seeking permits. The downturn in the economy should not prevent the issuing of permits where there is a justifiable need and a requirement by employers.

There is a difference between the rising number of redundancies and the migrant labour requirement. We are talking about a different category of worker. There is still a huge difficulty in the hotel, retail and service sectors, although there has been a complete slowdown in the tourism sector which has been very much accelerated by the war in Iraq. That will have a clear impact on the economy. Small employers have been the backbone of this economy to date. Yesterday I heard Deputy Ring speak about people in private enterprise who take risks but who get very little recognition for doing so.

The impression that the majority of employers who seek work permits are rogue employers availing of cheap labour by bringing in migrant workers is wrong.

FÁS is both poacher and gamekeeper at present because it is dealing with skills shortages and matching these up with employers. FÁS administers this scheme and it is very much at its discretion as to what is on its books and who is looking for work. I contacted FÁS last week with regard to a permit renewal and was told that there was a total derogation for bar work. The only exemption was for chefs but jobs such as waitressing were excluded. I mentioned the incoming regulation but was told that FÁS was given a directive from the Department to the effect that all jobs should be actively advertised and it would then get a clearance form to grant a permit. The permit would not be issued by Davitt House until that form was issued.

Permits should be issued by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is not a job for FÁS because it deals primarily in skills needs. CERT, which has now been incorporated into the new tourism body, deals with skills shortages which prevail in the tourism sector. There is inefficiency in that people must wait weeks for a permit from FÁS.

With the technology available, the application process for permits should be web-based which it is not. People must queue to make an application at present. I hope the Minister's officials take note of this and bring in web-based applications.

The demand for foreign workers is down by 50% and the economy is now totally different from what it was. It is wrong that FÁS is taking the upper hand in throwing out applications because it feels pressure from the Department to ensure that people can get a job. Some people do not want to work or take the jobs on offer. If there is an exemption to the job specification, permits will not be granted to employers in various categories.

The economy has slowed down and the projections for income from indirect taxation through VAT and VRT are lower. The backbone of the economy has been the service sector which has created a huge number of jobs with little or no assistance from any Department, by grant or otherwise.

The fact that employers are using migrant workers and availing of cheap labour gives out the wrong impression. When bringing in this legislation, the Minister should market it in such a way that those who get permits are not seen as stealing a job from somebody who is looking for work. It should be made known that they are employed on their merits because the employer felt they were most suitable for the job and because the unemployed here did not apply for the job – a major distinction. I also draw attention to the provisions in the Bill for fines to be levelled at employers.

The Minister should tell the House how many foreign workers are in the State. While she said on the airwaves that she has granted 36,000 permits, she should tell us the number of people that refers to. It is outrageous that one person can have four permits. That is how inefficient this system has been to date and I hope, under the new controls, that there will be equality and fairness on all sides.

I am delighted to contribute to this Bill. With regard to work permits, many Irish people are confused about the difference between those who enter the country with work permits and refugees. Foreigners are seen working in shops, factories and farms and it is mistakenly thought they are refugees. Many are people who applied for a work permit or had somebody apply on their behalf. They are working, getting paid and paying their taxes.

The Minister should make available a facility for Deputies to get a reply from the Department and to be informed as to the situation in this regard. The Department has failed over the years and the Minister should do something about it. The officials in the Department should have some kind of a line open for elected public representatives. Members of the House are rubbished by most Departments. However, I will give credit where it is due – if a Dáil question is asked of the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Agriculture and Food, Members are contacted by an official and have the opportunity to get the information they require. The relevant question can be withdrawn or left to be answered but at least the facility is in place. However, one could write to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment today and be lucky to get a reply this time next year. That is not good enough. It is bad business and bad manners for elected public representatives not to get a reply.

What proposals has the Minister to give work permits to the workers who come to this country rather than to the employers who seek them? That is what should happen. We have all heard the horror stories regarding those who have been abused by the system, those who have been mistreated, badly paid and housed in bad accommodation. This House is great for bringing in legislation and regulations and for telling employers what to do, but the Government and its Departments have nobody in place to work the regulations. It is fine to bring in new rules and legislation but we must also provide the necessary staff to check that people have permits, that they are working in good conditions and that they are being properly paid and cared for by their employers. It is important that the necessary staff are put in place.

I agree with some of the points raised by the Minister in this Bill. I am concerned that many people who could take available jobs do not do so because employers will not pay ordinary Irish people and those coming from abroad. That is why workers must be protected every step of the way. There are some wonderful employers who pay their staff properly and treat them well. However, there are others who do not do so and who have always had a name for not paying staff properly. One can go into a shop anywhere in the country and not see any Irish people working there. There must be somebody in that com munity who needs an income and is prepared to do the job. They cannot do it because some employers are not prepared to pay their staff, will not give them the correct hours and will work them day and night, seven days a week. Workers must be protected.

Deputy Perry referred to FÁS which seems to be the watchdog in this regard. Before applying for a work permit, the job must be advertised in a local newspaper and a check must then be made with FÁS to discover if anyone is available. I have a major problem with some of the categories which are not allowed. There are Irish people prepared to do these jobs provided they are paid for their work. That is the big issue.

As a Deputy from a rural constituency, I recognise that the Minister is a strong link between Boston and Ireland, and I would be with her part of the way in that regard.

As far as Mayo.

The Minister and her Department hold talks often with the American administration. A tragedy is taking place at present with regard to many Irish emigrants in America. The Minister will visit America again and will talk to the administration there with regard to Irish, American and world issues. Will she try to obtain some permits or leeway for Irish people illegally in America? I realise that the Minister might not think this the right time to raise this matter. However, I was sad at Christmas when I met a woman who is dying from cancer. She has a son with a good job in America, where he has a partner and child. He will not come home because if he does, he knows that he will not be able to get back into America again because he has been there illegally for some years. He has tried on many occasions to get a green card from the US.

Perhaps the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment could ask the authorities in the United States about the thousands of Irish people who were given a green card but did not use it. Provisions are needed for such people, similar to those the Minister is making for non-national workers in this country. Some Irish people travel to the US for a week or two weeks to ensure they can keep the card in order. The Minister should pursue this matter with the US Administration. The people to whom I refer are immigrants and are treated in the same manner as immigrants are treated in this country. We must ensure that Irish citizens are protected abroad, just as citizens arriving here from other states are protected. I ask the Minister to pursue this important matter.

I hope the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will try to deal with work permit applications as quickly as possible and that sufficient staff levels are put in place to that end. I would like the correspondence between elected representatives and the office to be improved. Some people in the office think they do not have to respond to public representatives. I have always found the Minister, Deputy Harney, to be courteous in her dealings with Deputies, including me. She is a good Minister and I ask her to deal with the matters I have mentioned.

I welcome the Employment Permits Bill 2003. While it should have come before the House earlier, it is great that it has been brought forward.

Ten countries are to be welcomed into the European Union as a consequence of the ratification of the Nice treaty, which was the subject of a great deal of discussion. It is obvious that work permits have been allocated to the citizens of these ten countries in the past. When this Bill has been passed and the accession states have joined the EU, such people will have the right to work in this country without requiring a work permit. Approximately 40,000 people came to Ireland on the work permit programme last year. It is important that Ireland, as an isolated country on the rim of Europe, should have a multicultural and intercultural society.

I mentioned that the ratification of the Nice treaty was the catalyst for this process. The Labour Party insisted, with the agreement of the Government, that the Seville declaration on neutrality should be ensconced in the Constitution. My party also brought forward the Bill which led to the European Union (Scrutiny) Act, which allows for much greater scrutiny of measures that are before the Council of Europe. Discussions now take place on matters that would, largely, have been dealt with in the past on the basis of civil servants advising Ministers, who acted in consort with the civil servants and without reference to the House or the relevant Oireachtas committee. All such matters now have to be discussed by the relevant committee before they are brought to Europe and before a Minister can speak on behalf of the Irish people in relation to them. The new scrutiny provisions are welcome and have helped to effect the processes of enlargement and European democracy. They have generated a new perception that there is greater accountability and transparency in relation to EU matters. A great deal of further work needs to be done in that regard, but the measures that have been taken represent a step in the right direction.

This Bill facilitates the granting of free access to the Irish labour market to nationals of the EU accession states, with effect from May 2004. Such people will no longer require employment permits from that date. Can the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment tell the House the number of nationals of such countries who have come here in the past with work permits? How many of these people have been deported back to such countries in recent years, having applied for and been refused asylum? Approximately how many people have applied for asylum in Ireland in the last ten years? Such statistics would be interesting. I do not doubt that many people who apply for asylum in this country are economic refugees. We know that many Irish people continued to go abroad until recent years, over many decades and centuries, in search of employment, asylum and relief from persecution. This country should be one of the most sensitive and sympathetic to people who come here in search of asylum or employment, or both.

The categories of permits that are allocated, as well as the categories of people who come to this country to apply for asylum each year, should be examined. It is inevitable that some of the 10,000 to 12,000 people, approximately, who apply for asylum in this country each year will be economic refugees. Would it not be better and more desirable to establish a quota of work permits for people outside the European Union, after it has been enlarged? People who apply to come to Ireland for economic reasons should be able to apply in their own countries, so that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will no longer feel the need for expensive procedures such as Operation Hyphen. The deportations that are taking place as a result of such operations are heart-rending. The system I have suggested would be a means of putting some order on the asylum process, thereby replacing the disorder that exists at present.

This Bill contains a provision that allows the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in the event of "a disturbance" in the labour market's fortunes, to revoke permits within six weeks of their having been issued. It would be wrong to make an order revoking work permits that are less than six weeks old, however, as a person who has been issued with such a permit will have incurred the cost of travelling to Ireland and will, presumably, have been employed in useful remuneration for a period of time. No permit that has been granted should be revoked as a result of "a disturbance" in the labour market, whatever that may mean. Any person with a bona fide permit should be allowed to see it through to the end of the contract period.

The sanctions provided for in this Bill – a fine of €250,000 or ten years' imprisonment – seem heavy, given that one may not be imprisoned for ten years for committing murder. This Bill has been geared harshly by the Department against the employment of any person in an irregular fashion, but I do not think such a heavy-handed approach is necessary. I do not believe there is a requirement for such a bludgeoning type of sanction. The Minister could have removed such practices without introducing measures of this kind in a welcoming Bill that is permitting people to work here. I do not believe this legislation should be heavy-handed and deterring.

The present situation as regards work permits is unsatisfactory. It is wrong that employers can rule the roost by dictating who can and cannot come to this country, the length of time they can spend here, the conditions they work in and the wages they are paid. That would not be acceptable under any circumstances relating to domestic employment. If it is not good enough for our citizens, it should not be considered good enough for citizens of the world. The same standards must apply to all people who come here to take up employment. We cannot exempt domestic workers from the Equal Status Act as to do so means that some of our most vulnerable people will not have the protection of equality legislation. In the last report of the Equality Authority, the Government was decried for not allowing the terms of the legislation to apply to domestic workers. This is one of the areas in which people are most vulnerable and poorly paid. Where they need the most support, they get the least.

The third Equality Authority report makes very interesting reading in relation to migrant workers who hold permits to work here. Many occasions of discriminations are instanced. Pregnant women and farm workers who have come here on permits have been discriminated against as have factory workers, particularly in the beef industry. Discrimination is widespread and the number of instances is increasing according to the work carried out by the Equality Authority. We must ensure that the same standards apply to every person who works in this country whether they have a permit or citizenship.

Anyone can become a bonded labourer whereby they are contracted and tied to their employer. The practice continues to operate in certain provinces of China and India and we have reintroduced it here. The permit holder is tied to the employer and subject entirely to the terms of contract the employer sets out. It is an employer's market and it does not respect the individual as a person. Why can we not give the permit to the person? Why give it to the corporate body of the employer? We should look at the question from the point of view of the person and of human dignity. If we respect the person, we are likely to see much better terms and conditions of contract and much better wages. One of the most ridiculous recruitment statements of all time related to the Nepalese who were recruited through the PC Recruitment agency. They were said to be nice, shy and retiring people who had no problem working for the minimum wage.

What regulations does the Minister propose to introduce in relation to recruiting agencies? They purvey labour from abroad for potential employers at the lowest possible rate of pay. They sell the labour on the market at the cheapest price they know the employers can pay. That is not right and it is not fair to people who do not speak the language and find themselves at the whim of the contract of whatever employer has issued the permit.

There should be a crackdown on the manner in which recruitment agencies operate and advertise. There are recruitment agencies in other countries which seem to be operating as cowboys. The plight of 100 Ukrainians came to public notice last week and I hope the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has adopted a sympathetic attitude to them. They have been conned left, right and centre from the moment they began to seek work in Ireland. They have been deprived of their money by conmen. According to the Ukrainians themselves, the agency responsible still operates. There is no reason we cannot contact Interpol or ask the Ukrainian police to deal with the agency. I would like us to be proactive in tackling cowboys abroad. If drugs were being purveyed by criminal gangs, we would co-operate extensively with international police, but there seems to be no interest when human trafficking is the issue. I would like to see the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment taking an active role in the matter to ensure that we do not find hard cases of this sort arising again. If the operation in the Ukraine is indeed of a Mafia sort, as has been presented, its victims are entitled to apply for asylum here. If they return home without the means to pay back the money they have borrowed, they will be subject to all forms of malpractice and persecution.

Unfair dismissal seems also to be a problem in the migrant labour market. I would like to know what number of people are sent home. What figures do we have regarding people whose contracts have been terminated? Is anybody monitoring the termination of contracts pertaining to employees who have been acquired for a certain period of time for whatever reason? How is the Minister's Department addressing that matter?

The Minister has failed to translate into domestic legislation 14 European Union directives which does not speak well of the responsible operation of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment according to good practice across the State. The directive which protects contract workers has not been introduced into legislation despite the fact that it has been in operation since July 2001, which is almost two years ago. We have breached the deadline for its introduction as we have for the others. To breach the EU directive deadline in 14 instances shows a lack of care in dealing with serious human problems. Will the Minister provide the House with a commitment as to when she will implement the directive ensuring work permit holders are treated fairly and similarly to their European counterparts and to indigenous workers here?

United Nations day for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against people occurred on 21 March, which is particularly appropriate given its proximity to St. Patrick's Day. St. Patrick was a person from abroad who came here as a slave and returned once free to give us certain values. March is also a time when Ministers join the great Cabinet diaspora which follows the Irish diaspora throughout the world to celebrate with them abroad. They go also to drum up business. St. Patrick's Day is a time of symbolism for those people who fled this island for one reason or other, mainly because they were looking for better lives and opportunities to work in far-flung countries.

It is appropriate to take the celebration of St. Patrick's Day as our guiding symbol for the elimination of all forms of racism. We must put in place proper protections and education and awareness programmes for all those who come here from other countries whether they come as workers or asylum seekers or for other reasons. The Minister's Department should have a particular role to play because the vast majority of those who come to Ireland are attracted by our economic success in recent years. We must ensure that no forms of racism or xenophobia continue to operate in this country.

I welcome the legislation. It is a great day to see the extension of the European Union to include another ten countries. We are in the lucky position of being able to invite people to come here on work permits. I look forward to the day when they can be invited as persons in their own right without being in any way subservient to employers or where employers have control of the circumstances of their work here.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Boyle, Ó Snodaigh and Cowley. Before I speak about the technical details of the Bill I wish to record our deep appreciation of the contribution made to Irish society by all non-nationals living and working here. They have made major efforts in the development of the social, economic and political life of the country. Quite frankly, there are many services that would not be able to function and develop without their skills. We thank them for this work and we acknowledge their enormous contribution to Irish life.

We must put on record our total opposition to the emergence of racism over the last five years. Racist attacks and abuse do not represent the views of the vast majority of Irish citizens. Non-nationals are welcome in our country. As a nation with a history of emigration we have an extra responsibility to ensure equality, justice and fair play.

The Bill will facilitate the granting of free access to the Irish labour market to nationals of EU accession states with effect from May 2004. From the date of accession, nationals of these countries will no longer require permits to work in Ireland. I welcome this provision and I hope that all non-nationals working here are treated with respect.

I believe that interculturalism is the way forward. However, I have some concerns about some sections of the Bill. I hope that the section which refers to the Irish labour market suffering disturbance after EU enlargement will not be used in a negative way against non-nationals or used as an excuse to harbour resentment. This section has the potential to inflame, and expulsions should never be tolerated. The persons concerned should be treated with sensitivity and respect.

I am also concerned about the section dealing with penalties for non-compliance by employers and employees. This is extremely dangerous and I urge the Minister and the Government to drop these penalties. One can imagine our reaction if, for instance, the US Government or any other government decided to implement this type of legislation. Thousands of Irish people could possibly be thrown out and we would expect them to be treated with respect and dignity as Irish citizens abroad.

Punishing employers and workers is not the way forward. This section of the Bill should show more vision and compassion. I urge the Minister to listen to the views of the groups working on human rights and working with non-national groups who know the legal and constructive way forward. I ask that this section of the Bill be deleted because it smacks of the fortress Europe approach. It has the potential to penalise workers and their families.

Section 3 of the Bill provides that the requirement for the employment permits will not apply in the case of employment of nationals of EU accession states after enlargement. The red light goes on here as I see the potential for exclusion and damage to our economy. There are many reliable and top quality non-national workers working here and they are both a human and an economic asset. We must value and look after people who make a major contribution to our economic life.

Those of us who are often stigmatised as being soft on immigrants are attacked and labelled as misguided. This criticism lacks logic and it also shows ignorance of the issue. Most independent objective economists have always valued the significant contribution which immigrant workers make to the economic development of any state. One need only look for proof of this to the Irish in England, in America and in other parts of the world.

Part 3 of the Bill lists the financial implications. It will result in a reduction of work permit processing fees of about 30%. This Bill also claims a reduction in demand for work permits thus facilitating a better customer service and quality control.

I wish to see a Bill that respects the rights of immigrant workers and does not penalise them in any way. I ask the Government to support the recent NGO alliance report on implementing commitments from the world conference against racism and to implement the recommendations from this alliance for Ireland's national plan against racism. The report contains many constructive proposals. It tackles issues of racism and discrimination at both community and institutional levels and they must be dealt with in terms of education, housing, health care, work and religious practices, in order to ensure equality for all. This Bill could be a block to this type of new Ireland.

Other speakers have spoken about the question of illegal trafficking of people and instances of families dying in the backs of trucks. This is horrific and we should ask why families are forced to take such desperate measures.

There are highly qualified non-national people working in low paid jobs – I know of a biologist and a teacher. Our disadvantaged schools need teachers and we need people to do research. I had the privilege of working in a primary school in the north inner city for 20 years. Non-nationals made up 15% of the pupil numbers. They made nothing but a positive contribution to the school. Many of the parents were working and living legally here – many of them wore Dublin Bus uniforms. It strongly challenged the myth that many people were living off social welfare and exploiting the system.

We must ensure in the legislation that all workers are treated equally. We must examine the issue of low pay. Irish workers will not work in some jobs because the pay is so low and it seems some employers are exploiting their workers.

I have concerns and reservations about this Bill but I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in the debate.

At the outset I wish to express my concern at the manner in which this Bill is being brought before the House. In this 29th Dáil the Government has presented 19 Bills, 13 of which have been subject to a guillotine of one form or another, either on Second Stage, Committee Stage or Report Stage. In some cases of important legislation the guillotine has been used on all Stages. The Minister is obviously exercised by the deadline of 16 April but that is no excuse not to have introduced legislation of this type well before this time.

We had this debate on the occasion of the second referendum on the Treaty of Nice. I would have thought the opportunity would have been taken then to present and fully draft legislation of this type. It is surprising that since that time, the Government's position has shifted in many ways in relation to the type of restrictions or lack of them that it would place on immigrant workers from EU accession countries. At the start the position was that all workers would be allowed in without any such restrictions. That was the correct attitude, which was consistent with the EU's goal of free movement of labour throughout the EU. During the course of that campaign, and responding to some who were playing on racist fears, the Government let it be known out of the side of its mouth that it was willing to consider introducing measures that would restrict the flow of workers or review their entry into this country after a considerable period.

Now there is a third position, which is a bit of both. The Government indicates it will let workers into the country without restrictions in the beginning but it reserves the right to review the position after a number of years. The thinking in Government is mixed up in this regard. It is still trying to send a signal to those who are ignor ant of the need for foreign workers to come to this country because of what they can contribute and those who seem to play on the fears of others that such people are coming in and taking what are perceived to be Irish jobs in the midst of rising unemployment. The reality is that the people who need to be encouraged to come to this country work in sectors where Irish people are not available to work and may not be available for several years unless we take measures in our third level education system to ensure we have the expertise in important areas of science and technology.

We tend to forget the fear of a horde of foreign workers coming to this country. It is not recognised that already people from countries who are not part of the European Union have the right to enter this country without work permits. Members of the European economic area, such as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, have that right. While they might be relatively wealthy countries, the fact that we do not have a large Norwegian or Liechtenstein presence in the workforce indicates this is a right people use depending on whether they have a need for employment or they fit the gaps in employment that exist in our economy. We must also face the fact that people might not like living in our society.

I happen to be a child of Irish emigrants – my mother was a nurse and my father a carpenter – who sought and achieved employment in the United States. As a result they achieved a good standard of living for themselves and their family without the type of administrative restrictions this Bill seeks to address. If the Minister had any excuse for introducing this legislation at such a late date, I would have thought she would have used the opportunity to address the central problem in the work permits system in that work permits in the hands of employers is a form of economic chattel. This should not be the case in the 21st century. If we want workers and if we value the dignity of labour, work permits should be in the name and possession of the people who are doing the work. This system, which operates elsewhere, is the type of system which should operate here. It is the type of reform which should be introduced in this legislation. The fact that the Minister has chosen not to adopt such a measure indicates that she is prepared to listen to many employers' organisations who exploit foreign workers.

A constituent of mine, an Indian national, was brought into this country as a skilled engineer to work with ISPAT International. After a short time he was fired by the company and found himself in straitened economic circumstances. He then went through a series of jobs where he found employers who were willing to take up his work permit. These jobs had nothing to do with his qualifications and were very lowly paid. His story is not unique in the Irish economy.

In light of all this talk about EU accession countries, I am disappointed the Minister has not used a lead-in period prior to accession. Many nationals of accession countries who have come to Ireland to seek direct employment have had to go through the rigmarole of the work permit system, even though eventually they will be part of the EU and will not require work permits. The Minister should have been more far-sighted. She should have introduced a lead-in period in advance of accession which would have given people from the Baltic states and Mediterranean countries an opportunity to work in this country. The fact that she has not done so means she is sending out mixed signals about the nature of employment and unemployment here.

I commend the amendment of my party spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment, Deputy Ryan. It proposes that there should be an immigrant worker's rights unit within the Labour Relations Commission. There is an obvious problem which the Government is not willing to identify or tackle, not just in terms of rates of pay but in relation to working conditions. There is a large infrastructural project under construction in my constituency, the Ballincollig bypass. The work is being carried out by a Turkish company. It is the first such project to go to a company outside of Ireland and the EU. While the workers seem to have good working conditions, the accommodation conditions associated with their employment is another matter in that there could be 12, 18 or 20 people living in single households. The central principle when inviting foreign workers to this country should be that the rights they enjoy should be no less than the rights we seek to give Irish citizens in employment.

On those grounds, the Government has produced a very narrow Bill. It has missed a huge opportunity to improve rights for all workers regardless of their background and nationality. I am disappointed this is the best the Government can do and I hope there will be better legislation in the future.

Is am spreagúil é seo dár náisiún, mar tá Éire ag athrú. Tar éis 50 bliain de eisimirce, an diaspora agus pobail Gaelacha agus Éireannacha a gcothú thar lear agus an tionchar a bhí acu ar an dtír seo, tá athrú ag teacht ar ár dtír féin. Tá daoine ó gach uile cearn den domhain ag féachaint ar Éirinn mar áit chun maireachtaint agus obair innti, sa bhealach a d'fhéach ár sinsir ar Mheiriceá, ar Shasana nó ar an Astráil san 19ú nó 20ú aois. Is athrú deimhneach é sin ar chóir go mbeadh fáilte roimhe. Is léiriú cé chomh aibigh is atáimid mar shochaí an tslí a chaithimid leis an athrú sin amach anseo nó mar a chaithimid leis faoi láthair agus mar a dhéanaimid déileáil leis an athrú daonra nó an athrú cultúir atá ag teacht dá bharr.

Dá bhrí sin, táim ag impí ar an Rialtas polasaí deimhneach imirceach a mhúnlú, polasaí a thabharfadh aitheantas do na buntáistí a bhaineann le himirceacht, polasaí atá ag leatha fáilte seachas a bheith ag déileáil le himircigh mar bhagairt agus ag déanamh iarracht bacanna a chur os a gcomhair, mar atá an polasaí atá ann faoi láthair ag déanamh.

Contrary to popular misconception, immigrants are of economic benefit to Ireland. Immigrant driven economies are dynamic because immigrants tend to be young, entrepreneurial and economically productive. Our experiences of migration and the incredible productivity of the Irish abroad shows the truth of this. Immigrants do not drain scarce public resources. They generally make a net contribution to the public purse.

Dá ndéanfaí imircigh a mhealladh agus cead a thabhairt dóibh oibriú a luaithe agus atá siad anseo d'ardófaí an ioncaim cánach agus chuirfí leis an gcaiteachas sa gheilleagar.

A positive, compassionate and anti-racist immigration policy would develop positive criteria for immigrant selection, based on skills and other suitable factors, on more than the mere European nationality. The current work permit system should also be reformed so that permits would be granted to employees, not employers. This is necessary to reduce the exploitation that has been occurring, as my colleague, Deputy Morgan, outlined earlier. There was an opportunity today to introduce this reform. Sinn Féin has tabled an amendment to this effect and I would welcome and encourage support for it from both sides of the House.

The positive immigration policy proposed by us would end the punitive direct provision policy which prevents refugees from working while their claims are being processed. Most asylum applicants could be productive in employment if given the chance. Those who earn an income and pay taxes could likely offset the number who are unable to work or find suitable work.

We also need legislation that will recognise and extend the right to work so that not only will all refugees be entitled to a work permit, but asylum seekers whose claims are still being processed after six months would be allowed to work. Most importantly, as part of a positive immigration policy, there is a need to create a separate agency, not under the auspices of the Garda Síochána, to deal with immigration matters. Immigrants as a class are not criminals and there is no reason they should be treated as such.

Sinn Féin is totally opposed to the plan by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce compulsory finger printing for non-nationals. It is a draconian measure and racist in the extreme. As part of a positive immigration policy, a single immigration and citizenship agency could deal with all aspects of immigration in a coherent, cohesive and efficient manner that complies with, and exceeds, the minimum international standards. Such an agency could deal with student permits, work permits, holiday visas, permanent residency applications of fiancées, spouses, partners and other family members, refugee applications and applications for complementary protection. That would allow those not found fit under a strict definition of what is meant by a conventional refugee to remain in Ireland on the basis of other humanitarian and compassionate grounds, if applicable.

Fáiltíonn Sinn Féin roimh an chuid is mó de ghnéithe an Bhille seo ach creidimid nach dtéann sé fada go leor. Polasaí inimirceach atá deimhneach, atruach agus, chomh maith leis sin, frithghníomhach, atá de dhíth. Iarraim go dtacófar leis an mBille agus go ndéanfar machnamh ar ár moltaí.

I acknowledge the need for this legislation. Over the past couple of years it has become apparent that there is a need to order the work permit process and the system of entitlement for non-nationals who wish to remain in the country. Following the Nice treaty, there is a new responsibility on the country to make statutory provision for the accession countries. We have no option but to proceed on this basis. It is the least we might do and it should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

Given Ireland's history, we should never forget that for several generations, the people of this country had to travel the world to seek employment. They were fortunate to succeed as they did. Almost 80 million people of Irish descent are spread throughout the world. It is a huge diaspora. Were they all to return home it would create insurmountable problems for the Government and the country. It serves us well to ponder the circumstances faced by migratory workers. It behoves us to keep in mind that when immigrants seek a living here, many of us and our predecessors went abroad, more in hope than expectation, and were lucky in their travels. It is a good thing that we have been able to facilitate many of those who have come to this country to work.

While the Bill does not deal with this, we should recognise the degree of exploitation of some immigrants who have been the victims of illicit trade in human beings. Some were dead on arrival to the country as a result of the activities of scurrilous and unscrupulous people who are dealing in human trafficking.

The Minister has said that as our economic circumstances change we may have to revise and rethink our attitudes. In a few years those in the applicant countries will be able to travel and seek employment as they wish within the European Union. That is as it should be because otherwise, the question of the European project falls to one side. While I do not wish to become involved in the debate on what would happen in such an eventuality, it is no harm to recognise that we need to be careful. The European scene is not as peaceful as it was, nor is the question of European integration and cohesion as settled. The issues that divided Europe in the past appear to have been raised again. With that, there will be an ongoing debate on the best way to proceed.

I have no doubt as to the direction Europe should take and I have exchanged my views with the Minister on previous occasions. It is essential that those who live on the Continent of Europe and are signatories to the various European treat ies and agreements remember that as Europeans we have a common interest. We must stick together and work out our own future. Some of our colleagues in Europe have moved in diverse directions and have been over-expressive on these issues. That has not been helpful and it could have serious consequences for the type of Europe envisaged by the European Union's founding fathers.

All-party support and the combined efforts of the Government and Opposition parties contributed to the successful ratification of the Nice treaty, but it required a huge effort. The treaty provides for the freedom of people, money, services and goods throughout an expanded Union.

I disagree with the view that should our economy constrict further, it may be necessary to impose restrictions on the number of immigrant workers. It has been suggested that FÁS and other training schemes would not be necessary if jobs were available for participants. However, they may not have the necessary qualifications for vacancies that are better filled by suitably qualified people. This has been proven in other economies outside the European Union. The Minister should bear in mind that in addition to forces beyond our control, the economy could be constricted by action taken in this country. An example would be a decision to prevent what could become an excessive number of overseas workers from continuing to work. At present they fill a role and contribute to the economy.

Some speakers referred to unscrupulous employers or, in some cases, employees. We should always recognise in dealing with non-national workers that they are far from their own land. They come here with the purpose of doing better for themselves and their families and, given the circumstances in their homelands, one can scarcely blame them for so doing, no more than one could blame Irish workers 100, 50 or even ten to 15 years ago for going elsewhere to achieve something for themselves. There is a tendency in this country to believe that non-nationals are here because we allow them to be. We have been in the same position and should never forget that.

I know the Minister is fully aware of the issue I wish to raise and I have asked questions on it regularly, namely, where a non-national worker has a row with his or her employer who does not treat him or her well. There can be two sides to the argument and it does not concern me who is right or wrong. The end result is that the employee finds himself or herself out of work. There have been cases resulting in prosecutions where employees were not treated well and found themselves out of work. We must always recognise the vulnerability of someone far from their own land in this situation. There have been many such cases in this country and I am sure that every Member has dealt with them as much as the Minister and I have.

Would it be possible to devise a smoother mechanism or system where an employee finds himself or herself out of work so that he or she can obtain other employment? This is essential because in many cases the employment is readily available. Employers seek the services of the workers and want to employ them as quickly as possible, but because of the procedures in place, whereby in some cases the workers must return to their home country to reapply, the situation is made extremely difficult. It should and must be possible to rationalise the system to try to speed it up. The first qualification would be that the person was out of work before he or she would qualify for new employment. If we do not rationalise the system and, instead, make life extremely difficult for these workers, they will become fed up and return to their own land. We would be better off in cases where they return home if they do so of their own volition and with fond memories, rather than the opposite.

The presence of non-national workers has been good for the country and has helped correct our attitudes in certain circumstances. It is no harm for children to attend school with children of other nationalities, to have social interchange with people of other nationalities and for people to recognise that we are part of a large world. This is especially the case in the context of membership of the European Union.

Whether we like it or not, we are members of the EU and must go along with all that entails. I am aware that, on issues such as neutrality, we like to opt in and out as suits the occasion. Agreements are not like that. We are either committed or not. We are a member of the European Union regardless of whether we like it and I hope we can make a worthwhile contribution to its future shape and development. If we do not do that, we are being less than honest with ourselves and selling ourselves short. We have a lot more to offer.

For that reason, it has been good to have non-national workers in the country mingling with our population. It teaches us and them the need to recognise each other's position and existence and the fact that not everyone is as fortunate as we have been for the past five to ten years nor were we before that.

The various processes that must be undergone by people from outside the European Union to achieve naturalisation are wrong. I do not criticise anyone in particular when saying that. The processes are especially wrong when, by virtue of their position as asylum seekers, some non-nationals are not allowed to work while they await determination of their status. It is ironic that in almost every case, these unfortunate people want to work. They tell us as much in our clinics. They want to obtain the necessary status to be able to remain in the country and work. They say clearly that they do not wish ever to return to their country for a variety of reasons, in many cases compelling ones. We would be failing in our duty if we did not recognise their position. It is very difficult for them.

I have often tried to discover what happened to those who were expelled or deported. It has been said that they turn up again in another part of Europe, that they come back in by another route and possibly under a different name. I would like to be certain that that is the least that happens to them because I am not certain it is. I believe there have been situations where tragic circumstances have overtaken some of these people. That is sad, especially given our turbulent history and the knowledge we have of such matters. It is unfortunate and sad but that is the way it is.

It is important for us to realise and recognise that refugees who become part of the labour force by virtue of qualifying under various headings are entitled, once they become citizens, to every service within the State and as much as anyone else. I know there is no attempt anywhere to prevent them from so qualifying. The procedure they undergo to reach this position is tedious, extremely long-winded and difficult. It is difficult to sell the notion to the public that these people cannot work for a period of anywhere between two to five years. They cannot work, much as they want to and contribute to society and the country in which they live, because of immigration laws.

I am aware there must be controls and other speakers referred to this. I am also aware that Australia, the United States and a number of European countries have immigration controls. I also know the European Union failed in its efforts to apply a universal rule across the board where everyone was treated equally and each European country treated asylum seekers or refugees in an even-handed fashion.

The Dublin Convention never really did the job it was supposed to do but that is the way it is now. The danger is that the general public tends to blame the people in those circumstances for not working when they could be working, even though they want to work, instead of blaming the system that forces them to be that way. I do not have to go through the details again of the colossal cost to the Exchequer.

I hope something can be done in the not too distant future whereby a refugee or asylum seeker who has been vetted for security reasons – we do not want drug barons or criminals as we have enough of them in the country and there is a simple system whereby applicants can be vetted – could, pending the processing of their application, be given a work permit. I see nothing wrong with that. The people who are coming into the country in those circumstances actually want that. It is the obvious thing to do. It costs a lot less, it keeps everybody happy, it is good for the economy and the morale of the applicants and it is good for society in general. Although this is not directly related to this Bill it relates to those non-nationals who may seek employment here.

I know another Bill is promised and I hope it will come before the House in the not too distant future. I hope the whole issue, referred to by speakers on all sides of the House, will be dealt with in the context of a comprehensive Bill to deal with the issue of work permits and the availability of work permits to those whose application for asylum or refugee status is pending. Rather than have somebody accommodated in sometimes very unfit but always expensive conditions, it would be far better to have them working in the meantime and contributing to the economy. If it transpired that they were not entitled to be here for some legal reason or whatever, that decision should be made when the time comes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which I welcome. Tá fáilte mór roimh an Bille seo. I am grateful such a Bill has been introduced. It is badly needed. It says a lot about us as Europeans to our partners in Europe and the eight countries that will join the EU. It is a wonderful thing we are doing for them. It is very Christian and Irish. I congratulate the Government on this. Certainly, the position could have been otherwise. There could have been restrictions as there are in other European countries but Ireland chose to do the honourable thing and to be true to our tradition of Ireland of the welcomes. These people are a group who have contributed greatly to us already and we have a proud tradition of welcoming people.

We have changed from emigrant to immigrant status. Our people emigrated all over the world. I am involved in the safe home project which deals with Irish emigrants in large population centres abroad. I pay tribute to the Minister for her help with that project. It has been important for many of our citizens who went away, fell on hard times and wished to come back again but did not have the means to do so.

There is a proviso in the legislation that if the labour market becomes precarious we can bring in safeguards to ensure that we can introduce work permits for people from other countries. While other speakers have said this is regrettable, I wonder how people would feel about it if the provision was not there and the labour market seized up. Would they say to the Government that it should have introduced a provision? The rationale behind that would be, there is no point in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

It is important that we treat all our workers with equal respect whether they are from other countries or our own. The situation where work permits are in the name of the employer gives an employer, as other speakers have said, the opportunity to put pressure on the employee or to threaten them with unemployment or deportation. As someone who worked in the United States as a student and who ended up going to an employment agency, one or two weeks wages went towards paying the agency for getting me the job. Anything we can do to stop this type of exploitation is to be welcomed. Anything we can do to make things easier in regard to the bureaucracy of form filling and so on would also be welcome.

We have a great responsibility to all our workers to give equal opportunity no matter where people come from. The people coming from the accession countries may be much like we are. Irish people have been renowned for their work ethic. They went to the United States, England and elsewhere to work. After the Second World War when England needed people to build up the country the Irish were there to do it. Equally, we need people from the accession countries to help us build up our country. We have needed them for the past decade when we did not have enough of our own workers. It is a two way process.

It is important that the regulations are there, particularly to ensure that there is no exploitation of workers and that there is no opportunity for employers to exploit them. I welcome the introduction of a system of fines in regard to where employers and employees enter into a contract which is not legal as regards work permits. Up to now the employer has got away scot-free with exploitation. I understand the fines range from €3,000 to €250,000. This is a significant amount and is no doubt a disincentive to the type of shenanigans that go on.

The world is a big pond. The Irish have gone all over the world and now it is our turn to welcome people who deserve the same chance as we got in America, England and elsewhere. It would be remiss of me not to comment on the fact that while this is happening it is important that we ensure our own people find labour. My own area, for instance, is probably the most economically deprived area of Ireland. We are told that west of a line stretching from Killala to Newport homo sapiens will be extinct by the end of the century. That is the trend and if present economic circumstances continue that will happen.

There was a lot of talk today about the Railway Bill, about what is being proposed for the railways and about the need for balanced regional development. Whatever can be done in our area to ensure that we can keep our people locally and that there is a future for them in the area must be done. This is not to say that I do not welcome equal rights for everybody no matter where they come from.

I welcome this Bill which is a forward step. We are honouring our proud tradition and nothing but good can come of it.

I thank all the Members of the House who contributed to this debate. Best practice does not mean having all Stages of a Bill on the one day as I explained on the Order of Business. This was an exceptional situation where we became aware only recently of the legal requirement regarding legislation of this kind, that the Bill was necessary if we wanted to have a safeguard and allow citizens from new applicant countries free access to our labour market from day one, and at the same time have some control in the event of a sharp or sudden shock to our labour market. This was on the basis of legal advice.

The Bill has generally been welcomed by the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Green Party and the Independents. I accept that Members have put forward their own views regarding some aspects of the Bill. The Bill before the House relates to specific issues that must be dealt with now. It is not a substitute for the more comprehensive legislation which is being prepared in my Department and which we hope to publish after the Easter break. A number of the points raised by Deputies are the subject of proposed amendments and will be dealt with in more detail on Committee Stage, which will follow.

I wish to deal with some of the issues raised by the spokespersons. Deputy Coveney and others raised the issue of how long it takes to get a work permit or renewal of a permit. The Department did have the time down to 15 working days in the second half of last year but it has increased again to about 30 working days, due mainly to the continuing growth in demand. In January 2003 the Department accepted some 4,000 applications for new permits compared with about 3,000 in the same month in 2002. In the three months from January to March 2003, the Department issued 9,500 permits, only about 300 less than in the same period last year. At present, permits are being issued at a rate of 950 to 1,000 per week. However, employers must do some more forward planning. Deputy Coveney asked about the possibility of a hotline to the permits section for Deputies but I am not convinced this would be of assistance. Decisions are made on the basis of the information supplied with the application and the employer should submit this directly. Rarely does additional information come through public representatives.

Deputy Broughan mentioned the abuse of the existing system. He can be assured that where my Department has evidence, permits will be refused and employers will find that employment rights legislation will be enforced. On the question of labour mobility, I can advise the House that work permits personnel do change employers all the time. This is the age of the mobile telephone and information spreads quickly. Our data suggests that about 2,500 or 2,600 such persons changed employers in 2001 and the final figure for 2002 was in the region of 3,000 to 3,500 people. In the first half of last year, permit personnel were changing employers at a rate of 70 per week. I suggest this hardly amounts to a system of tied or bonded labour.

Other European countries that issue permits to employers, particularly for semi-skilled or unskilled personnel, include Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, France, Spain and Italy. It should be noted that the United States also has temporary foreign worker programmes in addition to the green card programme where the majority of successful applicants gain their card because of existing family ties in the United States.

Deputy Broughan also mentioned some specific abuses of immigration. I can advise that my Department had no part in bringing certain Ukrainian personnel into Ireland. Apparently, they agreed to buy fake Irish work permits in the Ukraine from fellow nationals. We have had a new high security permit in place since January 2003 which is intended to make such fraud more difficult and expensive. Without going into detail I should say that some others he mentioned were certainly the subject of exploitation while here but some of these, the Brazilians, were here illegally.

The State cannot be expected to accept that everyone is a victim and has to be fixed up. We try to be sympathetic but this can be exploited by those who will keep sending people in on the basis that eventually everybody will be facilitated in staying here.

In regard to the second Employment Permits Bill, questions were raised about what that Bill will include. It will provide for criteria for the issue of permits, it will require the disclosure of relevant information, it will deal with refusals and the basis on which refusals are dealt with, it will deal with the revocation of permits in certain circumstances, it will provide for an appeals system, it will deal with deductions from employees' wages by employers or employment agencies in connection with the issue of permits and related matters. Issues such as employer penalties are now addressed in the Bill before the House.

Any proposal to issue employment permits directly to employees raises the following questions. To whom do we issue permits and in respect of what skills? How many per year? Do we give quotas to other countries and, if so, which countries? For how long may a person seek a job? What do we do if a person does not find a job within the period allowed? Can families travel immediately and, if so, who is responsible for their subsistence in Ireland? What impact would such a programme have on the housing market, particularly at the lower end of the rented private sector?

In terms of the resources, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has had to put in place the equivalent of a Government Department to handle applications from 10,000 to 12,000 applicants per year. Are we prepared to devote an equivalent amount of resources to processing employment applications from prospective employees? The present system is operated by about 30 employees in my Department. Normally alternative systems are based on applications being made while the prospective immigrant is still living abroad. We would want to be sure that the prospective benefits were commensurate with the likely costs of such a system.

Reference was made by Deputy Broughan to recent abuses. One Nigerian gentleman who was deported recently by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had two passports, two work permits, was an asylum applicant and owned a house on Carndonagh Road in Cabra or Finglas. It is important to have a penalty process in place, as Deputy Cowley acknowledged. At present, there is a major gap in our legislation in that it is not an offence for an employer to employ a person without a permit. Clearly that is an unsatisfactory situation as I said this morning. It may well be the case that somebody who does not have a permit for an employee does not pay the appropriate taxes and make welfare contributions. There may be a host of other problems that flow in the wake of that type of behaviour and other employment laws may not be enforced either. For a host of reasons a penalty system must be in place to make the legislation enforceable and effective.

I thank the House and express my appreciation to the parties for dealing so supportively with the issues at stake. It is an important Bill. It has been well received in the applicant countries. I have had letters from a number of the ambassadors in Dublin who are pleased that the Government is making this decision in favour of their country when they come to join the European Union.

On the issue of Malta and Cyprus, there is no need to have Malta and Cyprus included because from day one it will be agreed under the accession treaty that their citizens will be free to come and work in any EU country. Due to the fact that they are small countries it was never envisaged they would have a major impact on the labour market in any European country. Therefore, there is no need to include them in the legislation being put through the House. It does not apply.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share