Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2003

Vol. 564 No. 3

Employment Permits Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Ms Harney)

I propose: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this important Bill to the Dáil. Enactment of the legislation gives us a wonderful opportunity, as a Government and people, to extend the hand of friendship and solidarity to the new European Union member states and to forge new alliances with these countries, many of whom will find themselves in a similar position to Ireland after we joined in 1973, in terms of economic situation, size and population.

The Bill is designed primarily to provide a legislative basis for granting full labour market access to nationals of the EU accession states after accession takes place in May 2004. From the date of accession, nationals of these countries will no longer require employment permits to work in Ireland. It also puts in place a safeguard mechanism whereby a requirement for employment permits may be reintroduced in respect of nationals of the relevant countries, should the Irish labour market suffer an unexpected disturbance during a transitional period after EU enlargement takes place.

I am also taking this opportunity to put the employment permit regime on a more sound statutory footing. This Bill incorporates a provision whereby, for the first time, a requirement for employment permits in respect of non-nationals working in Ireland is set out specifically in dedicated primary legislation, together with penalties for non-compliance by employers and employees.

Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, I will place it in context as part of the general enlargement of the EU, as well as the Government's approach to matters pertaining to economic migration. An additional ten countries are to be admitted to the EU with effect from May 2004, namely the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Cyprus. From that date, they will be party to the treaties governing the European Communities. While the treaties provide for full freedom for citizens of the accession states to move freely through the enlarged EU, they do not provide for unchecked, automatic access to all community labour markets. In this area, given concerns surrounding possible labour flows and labour market effects, the EU has put in place a transitional measure, during which each member state will be able to exercise discretion as to the extent of access to their respective labour markets. The exception to this arrangement provides for full access to the EU labour market for two accession states, Malta and Cyprus.

The essential components of the transitional arrangements that have been agreed at EU level apply equally to Ireland and all other member states. They provide that for two years following the date of accession, national measures rather than Community rules will be applied to the newly acceded member states. In effect, this means we can choose to be as flexible or as restrictive as we like in relation to labour market access for nationals of these countries. Two years after accession, in May 2006, Ireland will have to decide whether it then wishes to apply the full body of rules on freedom of movement, or the Acquis. The expectation is that most member states would apply the full Acquis at this stage. However, member states may opt to continue the national measures operated in the first two years if they wish to do so, and it is expected that this will only happen where granting full freedom of movement may pose a threat to their labour market.

The transitional period should come to an end after a maximum of five years, but it may be prolonged for a further two years in those member states where there are serious disturbances of the labour market or a threat of such disruption. This case would have to be demonstrated. Finally, national measures in the transitional period may not be more restrictive than the provisions in force at the date of signing of the accession treaty, 16 April 2003. Austria and Germany have the right to apply national measures to address serious disturbances, or the threat thereof, in specific sensitive sectors in their labour markets, which could arise in certain regions from cross-border provision of services.

Turning to the current economic migration situation in the broader context of the Irish labour market, from 1997 to 2000, Ireland experienced an unprecedented level of growth of approximately 10%, year on year, in both GNP and GDP. This strong performance has brought about an unprecedented growth in the labour force, which, in the past five years has grown by 200,000 – currently 1.85 million – while the number employed has grown by 300,000 and is currently 1.77 million. The current level of unemployment is 4.5%, compared with an EU average of 7.9%. This level of employment growth has given rise to significant labour shortages and a rapid increase in the number of foreign workers. These have come not only from the countries of the European Union, the citizens of which enjoy freedom of movement under EU law, but from a wide range of other countries.

While the longer term growth potential of the economy may still be reassuring, the short-term outlook has weakened. This is particularly the case in relation to unemployment. There were 25,538 redundancies in 2002, the highest level since 1988. This constituted an increase of 28% over those notified in 2001, which in turn saw an increase of 49% over year 2000. The trend is continuing with relatively modest growth forecast for this year and next. However, in relative terms, unemployment is still low and the indications are that we will still have a need for both skilled and unskilled labour from overseas in the years immediately ahead.

In 1999, 6,000 work permits were issued in respect of workers from outside the European Economic Area, a record at that time. By 2002, this figure exceeded 40,000. Persons coming here to work on foot of work permits are fully compliant with our immigration requirements and are made welcome in their places of employment and their new communities. Much of this labour migration is of a temporary nature and is consistent with the broader pattern of intra-European labour migration. In future, we should be able to meet the great bulk of our economic immigration needs from within the enlarged European Union. However, we should also be able to attract particularly skilled personnel from the wider world.

The Government has decided that Ireland's national measures for the transitional period will be to grant full access to the labour market to nationals of the newly acceded member states from the date of accession, May, 2004. There are a number of reasons for this. First, and arguably most importantly, this will send a strong and unambiguous signal to the new member states that we intend to show solidarity and promote their integration into the Union from the outset. We intend that this should set the tone for longer term relations with these countries.

There is no reason to believe that there will be a large flow of labour migration to Ireland from these states after accession, and experience to date supports this view. Previous enlargements of the European Union were accompanied by fears of a flood of nationals of the new member states entering the Union, which never materialised. The many studies carried out in this area in recent years do not support the argument that there will be large, disruptive flows to the labour markets of most existing member states.

If we choose to restrict access to the labour market by continuing the need for employment permits, these new member states could well feel let down given the relatively healthy state of our labour market. This would be contrasted with the positions adopted by the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Greece and the United Kingdom, with which we share a common travel area, which will all apply full freedom of movement for work.

Economic migration to Ireland from the accession states has been very positive in recent years. Personnel from these countries accounted for about 35% or 13,752 of work permits issued in 2002, of which 33% were renewals. While there is clearly a high rate of turnover in personnel, anecdotal evidence suggests that personnel from the accession countries are generally highly regarded by employers because of a strong work ethic and reliability.

The Bill contains a provision that allows for a possible re-introduction of a need for employment permits if there should be a labour market shock warranting such measures. The presence of this clause in no way means that I have a pessi mistic assessment of our economic prospects over the coming years or that I expect an unmanageable influx of migrant workers from the new member states. It is, however, a prudent measure as we move into a new phase in EU enlargement and an uncertain economic climate. Not to avail of the option of a safeguard measure would mean that Irish domestic legislation was more liberal than the treaties governing the European Communities in respect of the freedom of movement of EU workers. It would also run counter to assurances given by the Government in the context of the second referendum on the Nice treaty. Other member states have also indicated that they will avail of safeguard measures allowed by the accession treaty.

This legislation is a necessary instrument to give effect to the core policy decisions in this area. At present, the employment permit system is run on foot of an order under Article 4 of the Aliens Order 1946. The Government's legal advice is that this would not provide a sufficiently robust statutory basis for introducing the measures contained in the Bill. Any legislation to underpin the national measures we propose to introduce for the transitional period must be enacted before 16 April 2003, the date for signing the accession treaty. Otherwise, there is a danger that such measures might be held to constitute a more restrictive regime than was in place at the time of the signing of the treaty. This would be contrary to the provisions of the accession treaty. This is the reason the Bill is being put to the House at this time and it is in the public interest that it be enacted before 16 April.

With this Bill I am taking the opportunity to put the employment permit system on a solid statutory footing. Section 2 was first introduced as an amendment to the Immigration Bill 2002, introduced in Seanad Éireann by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, late last year. The introduction of that provision was intended to remedy a basic defect in existing law, that is, the absence of a specific offence and related penalty that can be applied to an employer who knowingly employs a person not entitled to work in the State without an employment permit. However, as it is proposed that this Bill will be enacted before the Immigration Bill 2002, I am taking the opportunity to include this section in the Bill before us. It will subsequently be deleted from the Immigration Bill 2002. This gives greater coherence to the proposed measures.

We have in recent years experienced what many other developed countries of the western world have already undergone: a growth in illegal economic migration. While the majority of employers and employees abide by all the rules and regulations of the employment permit schemes in place, there are individuals who do not operate within the confines of the law and who look to take the easy option wherever possible.

The Bill states explicitly the requirement for an employment permit where it is proposed to employ a non-EEA national and creates a criminal offence for both an employee and an employer where a contract of employment is entered into without such a permit. It has long been a source of concern that there is a great legal imbalance between employer and employee when it comes to the law on the employment of non-nationals. No right-thinking person can agree that it is fair that it is an offence for the non-national, in general, to be in employment without an employment permit while the employer can take such staff on with impunity. It is also unacceptable that some unscrupulous employers should be able to gain an economic advantage over compliant employers through illegal employment. The provisions contained in the Bill redress the existing imbalance. They send a clear message to employers, in particular, that exploitative activity of this nature is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Work is continuing on preparing the more comprehensive employment permit legislation agreed by the Government last year and I intend that the legislation will be published shortly after Easter. The current proposals are in no way a substitute for that Bill.

Regarding the provisions of the Bill, section 2 contains almost exactly the same provisions as sections 4 and 5 of the Immigration Bill 2003. Subsection (1) simply restates the present law, at Article 4(1) of the Aliens Order 1946, to be revoked by subsection (12) of this section, making it an offence for a non-national to take up or be in employment in the State in the absence of an employment permit issued by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This reflects a key principle underpinning the economic migration regime in Ireland, that permission for non-EEA personnel to work in this State is a concession granted by the State rather than a right.

This restriction does not apply to all non-EEA nationals. Section 2(10) lists the categories of non-nationals who are exempt from this requirement. These categories are: recognised refugees and members of their families who have been admitted to the State to join them; programme refugees admitted under section 24 of the Refugee Act; current EU nationals, nationals of the three additional countries of the European economic area – Norwegians, Icelanders and citizens of Liechtenstein – and Swiss nationals, all of whom are entitled to participate in the Irish labour market by virtue of membership of the EU or other international agreements; and other non-nationals whose permission to remain in the State includes a condition that they may work without an employment permit. The last category includes, but is not limited to, those who, though not refugees, have been given permission to remain in the State for reasons of a humanitarian nature.

Section 2(3) is a new provision which creates a specific offence for an employer to enter into an employment contract in the absence of the neces sary employment permit. Until now, it has been an offence only for an employee to take up employment without such a permit, which has been a source of concern to me for some time. I am satisfied that it is right that we should take this legislative opportunity to redress the imbalance that has hitherto existed

A measure of the relative degree of wrongdoing on either side of the contractual relationship between employer and non-national employee in such cases can be seen in section 2(3), which specifies the punishments. The lesser offence lies with the employee but it constitutes an offence nonetheless. The employer offence, on the other hand, can be prosecuted either as a summary offence or in the Circuit Court on indictment. If prosecuted on indictment, an employer may be fined up to €250,000 and may in addition face a prison sentence of up to ten years.

The effect of the defence set out in section 2(4) is to place an onus on all employers, before they take on an employee, to carry out reasonably thorough checks to satisfy themselves either that the prospective employee, if a non-national, does not require an employment permit or that a permit has been obtained.

The fact that employing non-nationals without an employment permit is to be a serious criminal offence makes it necessary to ensure that sufficient powers exist to enable such offences to be identified and detected. Accordingly, subsections (5) to (9) of this new section provide powers for a garda to search premises, by warrant of the District Court if necessary, to punish the obstruction of such searches and to arrest an obstructer without a warrant.

Section 2(11), which specifies that, in the case where a requirement for employment permits is re-introduced for nationals of the new EU member states, preference shall be given to applications in respect of such nationals over applications in respect of third country nationals. This is in line with the accession treaty, which obliges current member states to operate any transitional measures they may have in place on a "Community preference" basis.

Let us now move to section 3, which contains provisions specifically relating to the accession states. Subsection (1) exempts nationals from the accession states from the need to obtain an employment permit to work in the State. It states that countries that become member states of the EU after this Act is passed, yet who are not immediately granted freedom of access to the labour market in the treaty of accession concerned, will be granted full access to the Irish labour market. This will effectively exempt the eight accession states to whom transitional arrangements apply from the need for employment permits. As there is no transitional measure in relation to Malta and Cyprus, they will already be exempt from this requirement under section 2(I0)(c) of this Act.

Subsection (3) provides that if the labour mar ket is experiencing, or is likely to experience, a disturbance, the Minister may make an order providing that section 2 shall apply to some or all the accession states, meaning that nationals of these states will require employment permits to take up employment. It is simply there as a "safeguard" in the case of an unexpected shock to the domestic labour market. This requirement would only apply during the transition period and would cease to be valid once the full acquis on freedom of movement applies to these states.

Subsection (4) provides that in the event of a re-imposition of a requirement for employment permits for these new member states, at a date after accession citizens from these states already in employment in Ireland would not be covered by this requirement. This should ensure that such persons would not be at risk of losing their jobs in such circumstances. To avoid the possibility of tactically dated employment contracts designed to avoid re-imposed regulations in such circumstances, a six-week working period prior to the re-imposition is considered appropriate.

I trust that my remarks will have conveyed the important public policy goals to be attained by enacting the Bill before the Dáil and the unusual urgency attaching to the legislative timetable in this matter. It is with the greatest reluctance that the Government has had to introduce these proposals at this late stage but legal advice is that this is the prudent approach. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Murphy

I wish to share time with Deputy Coveney.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Murphy

This Bill which grants full labour market access to the citizens of EU accession states from 4 May 2004, the date on which accession occurs, must be welcomed. Allowing citizens of new EU member states to live and work in Ireland from the day of their accession without the need for employment permits is a practical and pragmatic move which fully complies with EU commitments and obligations. This legislation will create a firm legislative basis for accession state workers but it must also be our hope that it will create significant opportunities for Ireland to forge new relationships with the accession states.

The benefits of this legislation for Ireland's business and enterprise sector will be important also. It must be hoped that this legislation will reduce labour shortages in crucial areas of the labour market. Ireland's increased prosperity in recent years has made it essential that immigrant labour into this State is encouraged.

This crucial labour need has certainly been reflected in the growth of the work permit scheme. The number of applicants availing of the work permit scheme has increased from 3,617 in 1994 to 40,321 in 2002. It is also evident that the work permit scheme is benefiting key sectors in the Irish labour market.

In 2002, over 6,000 permits were issued for the agricultural, horticultural and fisheries sectors, the majority of which were for the eight accession states of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia. Nationals from these eight states currently hold about 35% or 13,752 of all work permits in Ireland.

This legislation will ease many of the difficulties, from an administrative perspective and from the point of view of the employee, that have occurred in the past due to the inflow into Ireland of citizens from accession states. Instead accession state workers will now enjoy the same opportunities and benefits when seeking work in Ireland as citizens from existing EU member states.

From an employer's viewpoint it will ease many of the chronic staff shortages experienced by several industries, particularly those I mentioned, agriculture, horticulture and fisheries. Indeed, a continued pattern of inward migration into Ireland must be fostered given our ageing population and the need to maintain the current ratio of active to retired persons in our community. This is currently estimated at five active workers for every one retired person. However, while this legislation is a necessary step in the right direction it is only a piecemeal step and the broader issue of immigration and labour market needs in Ireland in the longer term must still be adequately addressed by the Government.

The fact remains that Ireland does not yet have a comprehensive immigrant policy. The Government has persistently displayed a lack of urgency and determination to advance a cohesive and coherent immigration policy, which is of itself a central plank of public policy in Ireland. The employer body IBEC shares this urgent need for immigration planning. As I mentioned earlier, the Irish population is an ageing one. For example, in 2000 there were 74,000 18 year olds, but by 2012, this figure will have fallen to 45,000. Additionally, it is also accepted that female participation in the labour market may not significantly expand in the future, given that Ireland now exceeds the level of female participation in the workforce in several age groups. What such figures suggest to me is that there is a glaringly obvious need to formulate immigration policy to account for these trends. It is imperative that Ireland prepares for the long-term. This is particularly urgent if we are to maintain our competitiveness and remain an attractive location for inward investment and enterprise.

FÁS, in its labour market review for 2002, supports such a view. It predicts that the medium-term economic outlook for Ireland is positive. FÁS estimates an increase in employment of approximately 190,000 or 10% over the six years to 2007. However, the Tánaiste and the current Government have frequently moved to limit the number of work permits available to non-EEA state workers. Clearly, this move suggests a knee-jerk reaction by the Government, a crisis management approach and a neglect of the longer-term needs of the labour market.

While this legislation will clearly allow for a smoother transition into the workplace for migrant workers from accession states, I am far from assured that such a smooth transition can be assured for non-EEA workers, who comprise the remaining 65% of work permit holders.

It must be acknowledged that at long last legislation has come before the House to remedy the unbalanced situation which let the employee working without a legal work permit bear the burden of legal penalties. It is a positive development that the burden for the employment of illegal workers is now placed on the employer, who faces a fine of up to a maximum of €250,000 or ten years imprisonment for violation of employment legislation. Welcome though these penalties are, I believe this legislation does not address the inadequacies of the work permit system as it currently operates.

Delays in the system of processing of work permits, which can take up to 12 weeks, are stifling our industry's competitive edge. This is a concern, particularly in sectors such as agriculture and horticulture which remain heavily reliant on migrant workers. These sectors are seasonal and the availability of workers is time critical. The Small Firms Association has publicly stated that employers want an efficient application system with an administrative turnaround time of one week. This is the time scale which the Tánaiste insisted in October 2000 was a stated aim of her Department, but unfortunately it has not yet been realised.

While such delays in the processing of work permits have a negative economic impact, the human aspect of this inefficiency is much more disturbing. Current delays are encouraging the growth of a black market in non-EEA nationals being recruited without going through the formal process. The Garda estimates that there are currently more than 10,000 immigrants working illegally in the Irish labour force. I am sure no one here needs to be reminded of the dangers of exploitation of workers which can result. This is a situation which needs to be tackled urgently by the Government.

However, even for those who possess a legal work permit their experience can be equally negative. The current work permit scheme unjustly ties the migrant worker to one employer. Work permit holders do not enjoy the flexibility to change jobs within their employment sector and thus cannot move from one employer to another, should they so choose. This is an unfair system, which makes the employee over-reliant on the employer, to the extent that they cannot be more selective over issues such as pay and general working conditions. The current work permit system allows unscrupulous employers opportunities to abuse procedures and hire cheap lab our to work under often-scandalous conditions. The recent case of the exploitation of Ukrainian workers highlights this. Another example of this is the plight of Filipino women hired as "domestic helpers". They have encountered several infringements of their employment conditions. These have included illegal deductions from their wages, being expected to do work outside the terms of their original contract and being expected to work longer hours than that stipulated in the terms of their employment, and as I mentioned, these are but a few examples.

For them, and for many countless others the work permits system has failed them. The scheme adds to the "behind-closed-doors" nature of the work. Their employers apply for and hold their permits, creating an imbalanced and potentially exploitative relationship between employer and employee. The situation faced by work permit holders contrasts extremely negatively with the superior rights enjoyed by those who hold work visas. They have the right to move from job to job within their profession. This imbalance between the rights of work permit holders and their work visa counterparts needs to be clearly assessed and, if necessary, altered to ensure a fairer system for migrant workers.

While the main elements of this Bill are not in contention, Fine Gael supports these initiatives, which are pro-European enlargement and strongly pro-enterprise. Nonetheless, I am uneasy that this measure does not go far enough. I support the statutory safeguards put in place for accession state workers, but feel much ambiguity still surrounds the whole area of migrant employment legislation. What is needed is legislation to state more clearly the mutual rights and obligations, which exist between employer and non-national workers. Many migrant workers remain unclear as to their legal entitlements and rights. Once such rights and obligations are clearly defined both parties are aware of their rights, and protections become more entrenched, thus reducing the potential threat of exploitation.

In a wider perspective, my belief is that what is also urgently required is a more coherent and effective immigration policy, not last-minute, disjointed piecemeal legislation, which lacks foresight and planning in relation to Ireland's long-term migration needs, and sidelines the social protections which we must afford to those who choose to live and work in our State.

Mr. Coveney

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation. It is regrettable that we have to take all Stages on the one day. During the Order of Business the Tánaiste said she regretted that also. It is not good enough that just because we are trying to meet a deadline we are rushing Bills through the House. This should have come before the House at an earlier date and we should have had an opportunity to consider, over a decent period, the need for amendments between Second Stage and Committee Stage, and, indeed, Report Stage. That being said, as Deputy Murphy has said, we strongly support the principle of the Bill.

The main purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the granting of free access to the Irish labour market to nationals of EU accession states with effect from May 2004. Surely it makes sense that from the date of accession, nationals of new member states would no longer require work permits to be employed in Ireland. Although I do not expect we will have to use it, a safeguard is also being introduced in this legislation, which is prudent, in section 3(3) whereby during the transitional period, which is up to seven years, a requirement for employment purposes can be re-introduced in respect of nationals of the relevant countries should the Irish economy or Irish labour market suffer an unexpected disturbance after EU enlargement; in other words, if Ireland cannot cope with the numbers of people seeking employment here from the relevant countries and if it has a serious adverse effect on the economy.

The accession countries concerned are the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. At a later stage during the debate will the Minister provide some clarity on Malta? Is there a special case in relation to Malta or is it so small that we have forgotten it?

Ms Harney

Because they are so small, Malta and Cyprus have the right to come in.

Mr. Coveney

That is what I suspected but it is important to have it on the record. The population of the new member states is approximately 100 million. It is essential that a small country like Ireland – Ireland is used by many of these small countries as a model they wish to follow in relation to economic development and employment – sends all the positive signals that we are willing to open our gates and to welcome new members into the EU as well as welcoming them into the Irish economy.

During the Nice treaty debate the argument was made by some that we would be overrun by eastern European nationals should enlargement proceed. For a start, they should not be considered eastern European, they are central European countries, primarily, at the heart of Europe and we should look at this as an opportunity rather than a threat to the Irish economy. There is no evidence to support the concern that we will be overrun by immigrants after enlargement. A number of surveys have been taken in applicant countries to establish whether people would be likely to move within Europe after enlargement. Surprisingly, the results appear to be that people are looking forward to the opportunity of improving their own economies rather than moving into others.

It is the Irish experience once we have reached a position of prosperity, which many of these applicant countries will reach in a far shorter timescale than it has taken Ireland, that we now have net immigration as opposed to emigration. In time to come, countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, in particular, which are similar in size and population to Ireland, will have net immigration as opposed to the other way around. We have a responsibility, as long as there is no serious negative impact on the Irish economy, to encourage that in any way we can.

The only way to prevent the movement of people from east to west within Europe is to facilitate and assist in wealth creation in central and eastern European countries. That is what the whole enlargement project and the future of the EU project is about. This is the first test for Ireland to take action to back up the words stated by most of the larger parties in this House during the debate on the Nice treaty, while at the same time keeping a safeguard in place should there be an unexpected reaction following enlargement and in the event that the number of workers is such that we cannot cope as a relatively small economy.

We should regard this legislation as offering the Irish economy an opportunity rather than posing a threat. It offers an opportunity to develop a positive working and economic relationship with new applicant countries. There seems to be a view, for whatever reason, that applicant countries are somewhat backward in their thinking, education and ability to develop as economies and that, as a result, their inhabitants will all want to come to Ireland for a more prosperous future. A different reality exists, especially in countries such as Slovenia. Anyone who has visited it will realise that its infrastructure is just as good as ours, if not better, and its education system is excellent, but that it has an unfortunate history in that it has been under the cloud of communism for so long, from which it is now emerging so quickly.

The populations of countries like Slovenia will have massive opportunities within their own countries once the EU provides them with stable, peaceful and balanced economies in which to trade. We should be targeting the skills they can offer to our economy, particularly in the area of science, as opposed to seeing them as a potential threat. In certain scientific areas we can learn a lot from our central European neighbours.

As Deputy Murphy has pointed out, there are some areas in which there are real skills shortages. I recall a very practical example of this. In the past fortnight a baker in Carrigaline in my constituency contacted my office and said he has been trying for six months to employ people with the necessary skills he insists upon to work in his small-scale bakery. He wanted two bakers from Lithuania to come here. Unfortunately, they are still in the process of obtaining work permits and will be for quite some time. Evidence that applicant countries, which are soon to be member states of the EU, can offer us assistance in respect of economic development lies in the fact that the two bakers would now be working in Carrigaline in the heart of my constituency if this legislation were in place. I look forward to the time when employers will be able to look to applicant countries for skills they cannot find here and invite workers here who will pay taxes and play their part in furthering the growth of our economy and standard of living.

Is it not the case that it would be almost immoral to allow Irish companies and workers to set up and work in applicant countries and avail of the opportunities that obtain in those rapidly growing economies while at the same time suggesting that we should not allow workers from applicant countries to come here to work? That would be against the spirit of the entire EU project. Since Ireland is a net exporter, and massively so, I anticipate that Irish companies will be looking to applicant countries for opportunities on a purely commercial basis. To suggest that we would restrict or prevent access for the populations of the new member states to avail of opportunities here is unthinkable. Unless we have a dramatic reason to impose restrictions on access into Ireland, such as one in the national economic interest, I hope we will not be reintroducing restrictions or a work permit system during the seven year transition period.

Like previous speakers, I welcome the fact that the Bill puts in place penalties for non-compliance with the employment permits system by employers and employees. If employers make the effort to apply for a work permit through the proper channels, this should be recognised. They should not be placed at a disadvantage in respect of their competitors, some of whom, if the legislation is not enforced, may well be employing workers through the black market. That is happening at the moment to a serious extent. Penalties must be put in place to deal with those abusing the system. Otherwise, nobody would bother making the effort to abide by the law and workers would continue to be abused. Employers, who are effectively breaking the rules and the law, would continue to have a competitive advantage, which is unacceptable.

The penalties are very serious, and rightly so. There is a penalty on employees of €3,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both. That balance seems to be right because the majority of employees working on the black market would not be able to afford to pay more than €3,000 anyway. It is a waste of time imposing large fines. The employers are being hit hard, which is sending out a tough but correct signal. The maximum fine is €250,000 or ten years' imprisonment, or both. This seems a little excessive for a person employing somebody on the black market, for example in a chip shop. Nevertheless, ten years is the maximum term in prison and we need to send out the right signals.

I appeal to the Tánaiste to undertake an information campaign to target employers to make sure they are aware of this legislation. As Deputy Murphy said, there are up to 10,000 people working illegally without work permits. Many of them and their employers are probably aware that they are breaking the rules but they are certainly not aware of the penalties. Before this legislation becomes law we need to get involved in an information campaign to let employers know what we are proposing.

I have some concerns about the existing work permit process. It is taking between eight to 12 weeks for an application to be processed, which is not acceptable in a time of modern technology and IT developments.

Ms Harney

The advertising campaign is an excellent idea.

Mr. Coveney

I appreciate that. It would be very welcome and maybe we should contact the employers organisations to try work through them to have an effective campaign. The campaign should not be political, but very practical.

It is totally unacceptable that it takes between eight and 12 weeks to grant a work permit. Returning to my example of the Lithuanian bakers, the employer in question, although he is going through the work permit process, knows that the two bakers will be working somewhere else by the time the permits are issued, probably in two to three months' time. They are looking for work now. There needs to be a maximum turnover time of between five and ten days and there is no reason why we could not put a computerised system in place whereby applicants could apply for work permits over the Internet or by e-mail and have a response within a week. This surely makes sense.

The delays in respect of work permit renewals are even more astonishing because the authorities already have the details on the persons concerned because they would have been obtained through the work permit application process in the first place. I have been told by the Department that renewals take the same length of time as work permit applications. A renewal takes eight weeks and, as a result, people are working here illegally. For example, if a person realises his work permit will expire in a month and applies for a renewal, which takes eight weeks, he is then stuck in limbo working illegally for up to a month while he is waiting for his renewal. We are talking about putting in fines of €3,000 for the worker and possibly €125,000 for the employer. That position is not sustainable. The renewal process must happen in two to three days. There is no reason it should not.

To facilitate both of those concerns there needs to be a hot line into the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment so that TDs, Senators and public representatives can make a special case that can get priority treatment for the kind of seasonal work, for example, about which Deputy Murphy spoke. If a fish farmer, for example, who will harvest in ten days time, needs people to help him and is in a rush to do it, it is a waste of time to tell that person an application will take eight weeks because he will not need workers in eight weeks time.

The final point Deputy Murphy made is the most important one. We need a co-ordinated and comprehensive immigration policy to deal with asylum seekers, refugees, work permits, students and holiday visas. People need to be itemised because at the moment the whole system is a mess. We need a more comprehensive and detailed policy to deal with each itemised area.

Mr. Broughan

I thank Mr. Michael Cunniffe and the works permits section of the Department for a very helpful briefing on the Bill. It is extraordinary that this legislation is coming in to replace a regulation under article 4 of the Aliens Order of 1946. The Tánaiste will know that I have asked her again and again, when I have been an occasional spokesperson on enterprise, trade and employment for my party, to come forward with this legislation.

Ms Harney

The Deputy is not an occasional spokesperson. He is nearly always the spokesperson.

Mr. Broughan

Officially, I am not. I have asked the Tánaiste many times to come forward with this kind of legislation. She will remember that just a few weeks ago I was the first Deputy to raise the horrendous treatment of 130 Ukrainian workers who were lured here and left almost penniless and homeless until some helpful Irish citizens brought the situation to my attention.

It is also extraordinary that the central part of the Bill is replacing section 4 of the Immigration Bill 2002, which was recently before the Oireachtas.

Deputy Coveney is right. The reason we are rushing today is because we have a deadline of 16 April. If this legislation is not on the stocks we will not be able to change the regime, as section 3 attempts to do, in the case of a disturbance in the labour market. There is now a whole series of efforts at rushing at the last minute to make up for the failure of the Minister to address this legislation. When work permits escalated between 2000 and 2001 – they doubled from 18,000 to 36,000 – why did the Minister not come in with her comprehensive Bill then? She told me a few weeks ago she was expecting the Bill towards the end of 2003. Now I understand the Department is saying we will have it in a few weeks time, before Easter. I mean the main works permit Bill and not the simple Bill for the ten countries before us today. I hope that is the case.

The Labour Party has grave reservations about many aspects of this Bill and we will seek, in the brief time available to us to raise what we feel are critical issues. It is dreadful that the debate on this Bill is being guillotined to conclude at 7.30 p.m. this evening. The conservative parties – Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and, at times, Fine Gael – seem to be where employers tend to go in this regard while the exploited and maltreated workers like the Ukrainian workers tend to come to the Labour Party to put their side of the case about the lack of a system.

The Labour Party believes the work permit system should apply to the workers and not to employers. In modern Ireland there should not be some form of indentured labour or bonded serfdom, which is a medieval concept. Particularly in terms of the ten new countries, the permit should apply to the workers, many of whom leave poignant messages on websites looking for work in this country and hoping they will be picked up by an Irish employer. We would like to end that system. The Tánaiste has not done so in the Bill. The workers should get the fundamental rights, as my colleagues in SIPTU have said and my party leader has said again and again, in their own names and not through employers who, unfortunately in a minority of cases, have grossly exploited them.

I am amazed that the Minister has not, in section 2, tried to address the issue of rogue agencies. It was her own officials, two or three years ago when she was putting a Bill through and I was trying to give some helpful comments on worker protection legislation, who told me that in the mid-1990s we had something like two agencies bringing workers from outside the EEA area. Within a couple of years the number exploded to 600. Obviously, some were reputable agencies but there was also a number of cowboys and gangsters who were prepared to manipulate workers. Again, it is pretty outrageous that the recruitment agencies are not included here for penalties and sanctions under section 2 of the Bill. As in the case of the, so called, Vittor agency in Kiev and whatever operation it was trying to run through Ireland, there should be some way to strike at those who have maltreated workers coming into this country.

In the Labour Party we also believe that when employers and workers have taken reasonable steps to get, for example, a renewal of a work permit, there should be a system of appeal through the Department. I hope it will be in the Tánaiste's major Bill. I know, from our civil service colleagues, that the Department is very hard pressed with a very small staff looking after, last year, 40,000 successful applications, not to mind the unsuccessful ones. I wonder should we have some structured appeal system.

The other aspect of the Bill, in section 3 which I will come back to briefly, is the whole issue of disturbance in the labour market. Should the Minister not have spelt that out in some sort of detail? Should there not be some sort of trigger mechanisms, particularly in certain areas of the economy, when, for example, there is a massive growth in unemployment? I will draw attention later in my brief contribution to disadvantaged areas, such as those in the Tánaiste's constituency and mine, where unemployment among the least skilled is rising steadily and the substitution effect may operate. I know the Tánaiste has referred to that in her speech and has tried to address it but it could have been spelt out a little bit more.

They are our chief concerns to which I shall return. On behalf of my party, I warmly welcome the entry of the eight new central and eastern European countries – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia – to full accession on 1 May 2004. I realise that Malta and Cyprus have their arrangements through the accession treaties. I warmly welcome those eight countries to the treatment they will now receive under section 3, by which their nationals will not require work permits in the transitional seven year period.

During the Seanad debate on the Bill, I noted that many speakers, particularly from the Fianna Fáil Party, referred to the fears which were stirred up during the "No" campaign in the debate on the Nice treaty, particularly the very unwise comments of Mr. Anthony Coughlan in regard to workers from these countries. The real issues for those who had genuine concerns about the referendum on the Nice treaty was the governance of the EU rather than its future economic arrangements. All these states, with the exception of Poland, and possibly the Czech Republic, tend to have populations and territories approximating to our own. We are very much admired in many of the accession states which wish to emulate what they see as the Irish economic miracle that was promoted and assisted by the European Union. Eight of these countries are former socialist regimes which have a remarkably high standard of physical infrastructure. I noticed that the railway strategy was published this morning but I have not had a chance to look at it yet.

Ms Harney

The former Communist states.

Mr. Broughan

The former socialist regimes with centralised democracy or whatever one wants to call it.

Ms Harney

Like the Deputy's colleagues in the Labour Party used to.

Mr. Broughan

The Tánaiste will surely agree that they have a very high level of physical infrastructure, if she compares the systems of Prague, Warsaw and Budapest to our system. Light rail still does not exist in the Tánaiste's constituency – it is only beginning to be introduced there. There is a major contrast here. Nonetheless, with the doubling of our gross domestic product over the past decade as we have caught up with our EU partners we have become a great magnet for workers from the accession states and beyond the EEA area.

The Tánaiste noted that a third of the work permits currently issued are held by nationals from the accession states. Of the 2002 figures of 40,000 permits, almost 8,000, 20%, came from two of these states alone – Latvia and Lithuania, on a roughly 50:50 basis. Poland produced another 3,000 of these workers while the bulk of the remainder came from the Czech Republic, Estonia and Slovakia. A less significant number came from Hungary and there were only 13 work permits issued to Slovenians, as referred to by a previous speaker. We have very substantial inflows of labour. Concerns have been discussed, particularly in the lead-up to the two referenda on the Nice treaty, about the economic impact, including on migration, of the accession of these ten countries. I read a very impressive study by Dr. Frank Barry of UCD in which he estimated that trade between Ireland and what he calls the CEE ten, the central and east European accession states, will double in the coming years. Many other economists also support the notion of there being massive trade opportunities. We currently run a trade surplus with all of these countries except Hungary, which seems to have an interesting niche in our high-tech and IT market.

The point was made that we will have concerns about foreign direct investment, particularly in regard to our lack of physical infrastructure, given that the accession countries appear to be ahead of us in this area and they are in a more central position in Europe while we are in a peripheral one. On the other hand, we have a good education system, as my Fine Gael colleague noted. However, with current labour costs much lower in those countries we have to be concerned about the general direction of the economy in the future.

I agree with Professor John FitzGerald of the ESRI that the absolute requirement is to put massive resources into infrastructure, particularly the broadband network. I have responsibility for this area within my party as it comes under my remit as spokesperson for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We must put the resources into this area. The ludicrous exchange of letters that we had recently between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport should be a thing of the past.

As the Tánaiste and Minster for Enterprise, Trade and Employment said in regard to migration, the evidence from previous migrations, particularly in respect to Spain, Portugal and Greece is that there were no major outflows. It has been said, perhaps rightly, that both Germany and Austria will have real concerns about labour market instability. While migrants from the ten accession countries already constitute 0.7% of the Irish population, their impact on the labour market will depend on the level of skills.

As I already said, section 3 (3) gives the Minister power to intervene if the labour market is experiencing, or is likely to experience, a disturbance. The possibility exists of re-introducing work permits for citizens of the ten – or perhaps eight of them – in the transitional seven years. That area is not spelled out and perhaps the Minister might return to it in her final contribution. We face a deadline of April 16 but the Bill does not really indicate what would constitute a disturbance. A serious downturn could occur in the economy following a major external shock, such as that resulting from the current war in Iraq.

In the Seanad, the Minister noted that our current level of unemployment is 4.5% compared with the EU 7.9%. Despite the massive expansion of the labour force to 1.85 million, she indicated that there are still labour shortages. She admitted today that there is a worrying level of redundancies – over 25,000 in 2002, which is the highest in nearly 15 years. My own north side region of Dublin has been devastated by a series of closures in the IT sector since the summer of 2000. The collapse of Gateway in 2000 was the first shock to the north side although a large part of its work force was composed of migrant workers. Tomorrow, a small but highly skilled company called SaRonix Ireland Limited, which makes oscillators, will close. This company employed up to 200 workers. I am not sure if the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is even aware of this. The company has been run down over the past year and a half.

Disadvantaged areas with early school leaving and grave social difficulties where there have been huge community efforts at job creation and re-generation may well be placed in difficulty by the expansion of the labour market to the accession countries. The Minister recently visited the Northside Partnership where we targeted four areas of unemployed citizens – Travellers, people with disabilities, ex-offenders and recovering drug mis-users. This programme depends on the support of local employers and it may become more difficult to place people.

I welcomed the last review of labour market policy in Ireland by FÁS. It's director general, Roddy Molloy, rightly indicated that it was necessary to insist that the local employment service database and that of FÁS be accessed first by employers, particularly in disadvantaged areas – especially for less-skilled workers. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment confirmed that change of policy in January of this year and reiterated the point that work permits must be designed to meet the demand for labour in circumstances where appropriate skills are unavailable locally.

She also referred to our future obligations as a member of the EU where we will have to give preference to EU members. That is one of the key effects of section 3. There is currently a major influx of migrant workers from several of the accession states to Ireland, especially Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Estonia. Given the happy prospect of full accession from 1 May 2004 and the original fundamental economic aims of the European communities there is a clear obligation on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which the Minister clearly recognises, to give priority to migrant workers from these future partners. In many respects, aside from infrastructure, the stage of development these countries are at is analogous to our situation between the 1950s and the 1980s, when we had massive outflows of workers, especially to the UK and the US.

The up-to-date work permit statistics show that significant numbers of workers have migrated here from countries outside the EEA. The 40,000 permits issued in 2002 included workers from countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, India, Malaysia, Moldova, Pakistan and the Ukraine. An amazing 3,255 workers arrived from the Philippines, 2,459 from Romania and more than 2,000 from both Russia and South Africa. Section 2 of the Bill will apply to these and all other non-EEA workers. In that sense, this legislation is long overdue and still far from comprehensive.

There is a basic and fundamental distinction between migrants who come here to work, who will for the first time be subject to serious penalties under primary legislation, and migrants who come here to establish a business. The latter category does not seem to be referred to in primary legislation, and we all remember the bizarre passports-for-sale scam of the Haughey-Reynolds era, whereby rich people were sold Irish passports on the basis of sometimes spurious business investments. Romania and Bulgaria are well on the way to joining the EU, possibly as early as 2007. The pre-negotiating stage of Turkey's entry, if it is ever to proceed, must get under way by the same date, depending, of course, upon Turkey's future democratic development and its treatment of the Kurdish nation. I hope, amid the very sad days we are enduring in the Middle East, that one of the effects of all the bloodshed and suffering will be, at long last, an autonomous Kurdish state for a historic people who have been very badly treated, especially by Turkey and Iraq, since the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

Given the figures listed earlier and our growing familiarity in the past few years with Romanian workers in particular, the entry of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU will probably accentuate the issues I have outlined, particularly in relation to the sourcing of non-skilled workers outside the EEA. Section 3(3), which deals with future trends, may have to be developed in the context of further accession negotiations and the transition periods of these two southern European states.

Turning to section 2, grave concerns have been raised in this House and the media over the past four and a half years about the treatment of migrant workers, especially those from outside the EEA. These concerns often relate to recruitment agencies as well as unscrupulous and even criminal employers. For that reason, I welcome the moves in section 2(2) and (3) to at last impose serious sanctions on such employers. I will try to amend the Bill, if the Minister consents, to include reference to unscrupulous agencies. My colleague in the Seanad, Senator Tuffy, felt that some of these penalties on indictment were draconian, and I have some sympathy with that view. However, given the reports we have received from some maltreated migrant workers, very serious penalties are clearly necessary for rogue employers and agencies.

The most important defect in the Bill is the complete lack of reference to recruitment agencies both here and abroad, and I hope this will be addressed by the Minister in her long-awaited main permits Bill. There is no reason the mushrooming and growth of these agencies should not be examined and regulated in this legislation. A brief Internet search using the key words "work in Ireland" throws up a huge plethora of websites around Europe and beyond. While many of these, such as the FÁS site or nixers.com may well be reputable agencies, there are appalling stories of grave injustice and serious abuse of workers.

I think I was the first Member of the House, about three weeks ago, to raise with the Minister and the Taoiseach the disgraceful treatment of more than 100 Ukrainian workers – I have copies of the passports of a number of these people before me. They were brought here by a Mr. Victor Malyuga from Kiev and his Vittor agency. The group that approached me had paid this agency between $1,500 and $3,500. Of course, when they arrived in Ireland and turned up on the doorsteps of companies to begin work, companies had never heard of them or their so-called work permits. This situation has received media attention in recent days, particularly in The Irish Times, and I hope that the Minister and her two colleagues, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will try to remedy the suffering of these workers.

The Minister may remember that in October 2002, I also highlighted the disgraceful treatment of a group of Brazilian cleaners, three of whom were awarded €50,000 in the High Court. At the time, they had complained to the Minister's Department, but when she was questioned in the media she was unaware of this, so I had to remind her that these workers had made a complaint. They were left penniless and without food, working 15 hours per day in desperate circumstances by a certain rogue employer. Obviously, this is not the only such case. There are many other cases of abuse of workers. My colleague, Deputy McManus, for example, drew attention to the appalling living conditions for Filipino nurses in 2001. Another colleague, Deputy Stagg, drew attention to the six-day imprisonment of 19 Moldovan workers in Mountjoy. These people became unemployed through no fault of their own because of the downturn in the beef market as a result of BSE cases. They were left without legitimate work permits.

My party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, highlighted the ludicrous Operation Hyphen a few months ago, when 300 gardaí were allocated on one day to track down three mushroom-picking workers in County Monaghan. In late 2002, Niall Crowley and the Equality Authority informed us that immigrant live-in nannies and domestic workers from countries such as the Philippines and Malaysia are not covered by our workplace equality legislation. If that is still the case, I urge the Mini ster to bring the matter to the attention of her Government colleagues and see what can be done. Mr. Crowley and his highly efficient Equality Authority said that there is an exemption in the Employment Equality Act 1998 for people employed in domestic service. Mr. Crowley also maintained that there is anecdotal evidence of high levels of exploitation among these domestic workers in terms of excessive hours, low pay and lack of decent conditions.

The disgraceful role of some of these recruitment agencies was highlighted a few weeks ago when we read the appalling account of an agency called PC Recruitment, owned by a Mr. Patrick Coyle, which was offering Nepalese workers to Irish meat companies on the basis that the Nepalese "are shy and do not cause trouble" and that they would "be thrilled to earn the Irish minimum wage." The general secretary of the ICTU, Mr. David Begg, rightly described this as very disturbing. I commend the Minister and her Department for acting swiftly upon media reports of that disgraceful gentleman and his company.

My colleagues in the trade union movement have played a very honourable role in drawing attention to the abuse of migrant workers by agencies and rogue employers. I particularly commend SIPTU and one of its officials, Mr. Mike Jennings, for drawing attention to the whole situation of groups of workers whom he characterised as being almost like bonded serfs, unreasonably and unjustifiably tied to one employer because the work permit system operates through the employer. I know the Minister will tell us later of the clear view of her Department that employers should hold permits, but given the cases identified by Mr. Jennings and SIPTU and brought to my attention and that of other Labour Party Deputies, this is an issue the Minister should address again in a fundamental way in the main work permit legislation. As I said, many cases of abuse of workers have been highlighted where accommodation and food costs and even fares are deducted from wages leaving workers in very vulnerable positions and in conditions which most Irish workers would not tolerate or consider just. The Bill should have included an attempt to address this fundamental injustice. When one considers the other major inconsistencies in the present regime for migrant workers, the injustice of working solely through employers becomes clear.

The work authorisation visa applies to highly skilled workers. However, the intra-corporate transfer, which was used a lot by information technology companies in the past, has been suspended. There was also, of course, the van der Elst case workers. I saw men working in my constituency recently who, I presume, were working for a foreign subcontractor. This is a concern in Germany, in particular. If a worker is working for a foreign subcontractor, the work permit system does not apply to them under the van der Elst legislation. Another group of workers on which people comment are non-EEA students who may work up to 20 hours per week. There is anecdotal evidence that some of the young workers in the black economy come from this group and that there is an abuse of the student system.

I welcome this Bill and I warmly welcome our ten sister countries and their workers into the European Union next summer. I note what the Tánaiste has done in section 3. My party believes that a permit should be in the worker's name. We should have acted on the problem of agencies and we should look at the level of penalties. The Tánaiste should spell out more clearly what "disturbance" means. The Tánaiste addressed the substitution area today and I commend her on so doing but we need to keep it under close review, particularly for our lowest skilled workers in disadvantaged areas of our cities and in rural areas, in the context of the management of our labour market in the future and the likelihood that the bulk of migrants to this country will come from 25 or perhaps 27 countries.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

I remind Deputy Eamon Ryan that this is the Technical Group's speaking slot of 30 minutes. We will have a sos at 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

I will try to fit my speech into seven minutes.

Acting Chairman

We will resume later.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Like Deputy Broughan, I generally welcome this Bill and its main provisions. Reading the Bill, it is interesting to reflect on how much has changed in a year. About a year ago our official position was that we were very much in favour of workers from the accession countries having open access to this country. I regret very much that during the Nice referendum campaign, that changed somewhat due to some of the poor and disreputable arguments used by the anti-treaty side. The Tánaiste seemed pressurised to include a clause where we would not be accepting of or open to the accession countries and I regretted that. I welcome that it has been somewhat opened again athough the inclusion of the caveat that it depends on our economic conditions, which I understand from our economic point of view, will be read by the accession countries as not necessarily a full and free welcome to them into the Union. That is regrettable. I very much welcome the ten countries into the Union and I welcome their workers into this country. We entered into a common market and a common Union in other ways as well where we provide each other's citizens with similar rights. While I understand our economic interest in possibly including a caveat, does it take some of the welcome away from those accession countries? Are we, to a certain extent, having our cake and eating it?

I understand the economic arguments for including a caveat because I have profound fears about the employment prospects for this country in future years. I fear the very dramatic increase in redundancies, which we have seen in the past two years, is likely to increase. I fear those jobs will not be replaced by the new jobs we were lucky to get in recent years. I fear we are facing a period of serious job losses and that we will have to use the caveat included the Bill.

I have a slight fear that the 40,000 immigrant workers who came here in one year have, in a way, created a dangerous environment for Irish workers. I do not wish to turn away migrant workers but the problem facing our economy is that it is a high cost economy. By using large numbers of migrant workers, are we putting off the inevitable day when that high cost economy comes home to roost in terms of job losses? If at that stage we have to place restrictions on immigrant workers coming in, we will be left with the worst of both worlds. We will have an economy which will find it difficult to shift to become more competitive and we will not be able to take in migrant workers for, understandably, political reasons. We are facing very perilous times in that regard.

I am concerned that legislation in this area is geared too much towards the needs of employers and not necessarily the needs of the employee, whether Irish or migrant. To take up the point made by Deputy Broughan, the permits should be issued to the employees. The current and the proposed situation where the employer holds the permit gives undue power or influence to the employer. It is important for reasons of negotiation and workers' rights that the employee is the permit holder.

I regret very much that the main employment permit Bill, which is due after Easter, could not be introduced at the same time as this Bill. It would have made a considerable amount of sense when legislating for employment permits, to outline their nature. I find it hard to understand why the Department, which had a year to prepare the broader employment permits Bill, could not have brought it in with this Bill. It has been six months since the Nice referendum, so there has been a period of time within which it could have been done. I will be interested to hear why that was not possible or whether there is a particular reason. I am disappointed the two Bills were not brought in together for the efficiency of this House and for better debate on both Bills.

In general, I do not have a problem with the provisions of this Bill. Some of the points Deputy Broughan made about bringing the agencies under control, giving the permit to the employee and giving employees and migrant workers access to the labour relations and employment appeals systems may well be contained in the forthcoming Bill but I would have preferred it if both Bills had been introduced at the same time so we could have had a proper debate. We would have been able to see the system we are setting up.

If we face a difficult employment situation and have to restrict access to the accession countries, will Irish workers be restricted in terms of their working rights to travel to Poland, Hungary or the other accession states? What will characterise our employment patterns over the next five to ten years will be a significant movement of employment to those countries which have a well educated workforce, like ourselves, better infrastructure, much lower access costs, because of their location, and which have lower communications, transport and other costs. In the next few years, we will see Irish and multinational employers moving their manufacturing and labour-orientated bases to those countries. In many cases, Irish employers will look for work permits for their businesses in Hungary, Poland and in other countries. That is something we cannot stop if we are part of this broader common market. That is the way things will go. Will we see a strange turnaround where we are looking for permits from those states?

The world has changed hugely in the past year. We face precarious and difficult times. The European Union has been riven. Prior to the Gulf War, no one could have predicted the breakdown in the concept of or confidence in where Europe was going. In those circumstances, it is hard to know what the real effect of this Bill or what the migration patterns will be. I welcome the Bill.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Morgan

I would like to record my concern that employment permit legislation is being dealt with in stages. I particularly refer to the comments of the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, in the Seanad last week where he said that work was continuing on more comprehensive employment legislation and that a further Bill on this issue would be published after Easter. I would appreciate clarification of the Minister's comments to the Seanad to identify why this was not brought together.

I welcome the introduction of the Employment Permits Bill although I have reservations regarding some elements contained in it. The Bill is necessitated by the current direction of the EU and arises from the creation of a two-tier Europe in which accession states are not accorded the same rights and freedoms from the time of accession as states which have joined the EU to date.

I welcome the fact that this Bill will facilitate citizens of the accession states who wish to work in Ireland. Contrary to what has been reported in some media, there is no evidence that there will be a flood of immigrants into Ireland following the accession of these countries. I hope the welcome which this Bill has received in the Houses of the Oireachtas will be reflected in the treatment of migrant workers from these countries when they come to Ireland.

Sinn Féin believes in a progressive immigration and asylum policy. There must be clear recognit ion of the importance of a positive immigration policy which will help to enrich this country economically, culturally and socially. We need to emphasise the positive aspects of immigration and recognise the huge richness to be gained from multiculturalism. The question of how we allocate work permits or immigration visas to accommodate both humanitarian and economic objectives must be tackled. We must develop positive criteria for immigration such as a points based system similar to that which exists in other countries. The multidimensional aspects of skills can be combined into a single index for issuing work permits by a points system. Points might be awarded, for example, for each level of schooling completed or for apprenticeship training, vocational training or relevant job training.

I point out to the Minister that the director general of FÁS, Mr. Rody Molloy, is also of the belief, as was mentioned earlier in this debate, that there is a need for immigration and work permit procedures. He stated in The Irish Times of 28 March: “There would seem to be a need to move to a new system based on nationally identified occupation or skill linked immigration needs or procedures”. I welcome the fact that this will end the anomaly whereby it is not an offence for an employer to hire immigrants who do not have the necessary employment permits even though it is an offence for the workers in such cases. This was particularly inconsistent as it was the employer who was granted the work permit, and that will be the case even with regard to the Bill before us. Because of this, employers faced no penalties if they did not renew permits for their employees and they were able to act with virtual immunity.

Many cases have been reported where employers have either forgotten or simply not bothered to renew permits. Such actions by employers undermines the legal status of immigrant workers. In many of the cases dealt with by the Migrant Information Centre in Dublin, employers did not tell workers that they did not renew their permits. Workers found that their permits had expired, that they were illegal and could face deportation. Introducing penalties for employers who break the law will, I hope, go some way towards discouraging this type of behaviour by employers.

There is one particular deficiency in the Bill which I would like to address and which I will seek to amend on Committee Stage. I refer to the failure of the Bill to address the current situation where employers hold the permits, thus allowing what is nothing less than medieval bonded serfdom to continue. The problems which arise as a result of this have been clearly illustrated in recent days with the case of the 100 Ukrainian migrant workers who came to Ireland under the impression that they were in possession of genuine work permits. These permits had been accepted by the Irish authorities but turned out to be false. These workers are now facing deportation. This would not have occurred if the work permits were held by the workers instead of the employers. If we do not address this issue, criminals will continue to exploit the vulnerability of workers due to the inadequacy of the current legislation.

Another example of this exploitation is the case of the Brazilian cleaners, alluded to earlier in the debate, who were recently awarded compensation for their ill treatment after they took their case to the High Court. They had been forced to work 15 hours per day with no pay.

There are also well documented examples of workers at various meat processing plants throughout Ireland. These cases include the confiscation of passports, workers being paid less than their Irish counterparts and allegations that workers had been asked to sign contracts obliging them to live exclusively in accommodation provided by their employers. There was also the example of Brazilian staff in a meat processing plant who were raided by their employer after it was alleged that meat had been stolen. The meat had been confiscated, but had to be returned when the worker proved that he had bought it by providing a receipt issued by a local butcher who sold it to him.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has said that non-EEA workers enjoy the same rights under labour law as Irish citizens. The fact that this is patently not the case, however, is borne out by the reality of most immigrant workers' experiences. In a written reply to a question asked by my colleague, Deputy Ferris, the Minister said that "legislation makes no distinction whatsoever between the rights of foreign workers and any other workers and as such all workers in Ireland without exception are entitled to the same statutory employment rights and protections." She referred to her Department's labour inspectorate's powers to investigate non-compliance with employment rights legislation. Her comments did not take into account the problems which are caused by the fact that permits are granted to employers and not to employees.

The instances I have mentioned clearly demonstrate that foreign workers are not protected by the same laws as indigenous workers. Non-nationals are often the most vulnerable employees in the workforce – very often, they cannot speak English. They may not be accompanied by their families, to whom they send the few bob they earn in this country. They are often afraid of losing their jobs and of being thrown out on the street if they make a complaint. They are aware that they will be unable to get another job in such circumstances as their work permits remain the property of their employers. The system ensures that they are locked to their employers.

I query the power that is being given to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in section 3(3) and (4) of this Bill. The Minister will be allowed to decide when the labour market is unable to deal with further migrants. Section 3(3) provides that the Minister can make an order to provide that section 2 shall apply to some or all of the accession states, if he or she is of the opinion that the labour market is experiencing, or is likely to experience, a disturbance. This measure gives far too much power to the Minister. A decision to require citizens of a particular state to have work permits, which this Bill provides shall be based on the opinion of the Minister, should be taken in consultation with the social partners, representatives of trade unions, the community and voluntary sectors, the relevant Departments and business and employer organisations. The groups I have mentioned should be allowed to feed into a collective decision-making process.

Section 3(4) of this Bill allows for the reimposition, in certain circumstances, of a requirement for employment permits for citizens of the new member states. The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, recently said in the Seanad that "a six week working period prior to the reimposition is considered appropriate to avoid the possibility of tactically dated employment contracts designed to avoid reimposed regulations." This unnecessary provision could create problems for workers from accession states who have been in employment in this State for less than the specified six weeks. I have indicated to the House's officials that I intend to withdraw the amendment I have submitted to this section because it contains a technical error, which I made as a consequence of the pressure of work. The six-week provision is unnecessary and cumbersome.

Although I welcome the general thrust of this Bill, as I outlined in my contribution, I believe that further reforms are necessary in relation to work permits. I would like the system of renewal of such permits to be streamlined. I share the sentiment that a two or three-day period should be sufficient for renewing permits in this technological age, expressed by Fine Gael Deputies who raised this matter earlier in this debate. Action is also needed in relation to rogue agencies. It seems those who establish agencies to bring migrant workers to this country illegally, or apparently illegally, get away scot-free, whereas the persons who are brought here are subject to the rigour of the legal system. A clause should be included in this Bill banning or punishing agencies that behave in an illegal manner.

How will we cater for people from the accession states who wish to come here to set up businesses? I refer to those who do not want to work for somebody else but who are entrepreneurs. Such a person may like to develop an industry that is strong in their own country, or they may be interested in becoming involved in establishing a butcher's shop, for example, or a retail shoe outlet. How can self-employed people qualify for work permits? They cannot say that they are coming here to work for somebody else, as they will not have an employer. I expect that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will include some provision in this Bill to facilitate the arrival in this country of those with an entrepreneurial spirit. I would appreciate clarification of this matter by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern. How will such people be facilitated in the circumstances I have outlined?

A number of the points I wish to make were alluded to earlier in this debate by other speakers and there is no sense in occupying the time of the House by reiterating such remarks as we need to examine and deal with this Bill quickly. I wish to demonstrate that Deputies on this side of the House do not necessarily prolong debates when it is not necessary to do so. Many of the guillotines that have been imposed, therefore, are less than necessary.

Mr. Connolly

I favour granting free access to the Irish labour market to nationals of EU accession countries from the date of accession. I abhor the widespread human trafficking and exploitation which has been taking place on both sides of the Border. Scenes of such abuse, which were shown in a television documentary on Tuesday night, would normally be associated with countries other than Ireland, such as those in South America. The problems I have mentioned are to be found on our doorstep. People can be smuggled into Ireland conveniently and safely at the Border. Although we are not supposed to see it taking place in the Border region, we know that it happens.

Latvian and Lithuanian nationals, for example, were ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous employers and forced to live in conditions unfit for animals. They worked for 16 hours each day and, in most cases, were paid less then €1 per hour, which is a great deal less than the minimum wage. I do not know whether such people were duped by a promise of a steady job, abducted by smugglers or charged an exorbitant fee for a perilous ride in a leaky boat. Women and children who are the victims of human trafficking are sometimes treated as commodities by the slave traders who transport them. Such people are vulnerable and desperate and take desperate risks.

The UN estimates that four million people are involved in human trafficking each year. Those involved in organised crime, such as trafficking, earn €7.8 billion per year from such practices. Between 20,000 and 50,000 people are smuggled from eastern and central Europe each year. Wars have separated families and created orphans. Many people who have suffered economically as a result of the transition and social upheaval following the collapse of communism have been duped into making a journey by the promise of employment as a waitress or a babysitter and, literally, untold wealth as a result. The moneys involved are often considered to be great. Smugglers who transport clients may also supply false identity papers as part of their services. With housing, transport and food expenses, documentation is a factor that may contribute to the debt bondage that keep men and women in debt to, and working for, their contacts.

Smugglers use the cheapest forms of transport and pack containers and boats with many people because they want to maximise their profits.

Every so often we hear of boats being overcrowded and capsizing with resultant loss of life. It is during the process of smuggling and transportation of migrants to their destinations that tragedies and human rights abuses frequently occur. The tragic deaths of 58 Chinese migrants trying to reach Britain some years ago represented the tip of the iceberg and was only one of several recent accidents which showed the magnitude and seriousness of the problem. Some illegal immigrants melt into the population of a country and have nothing further to do with the smugglers, but some smugglers victimise the clients they transport by confiscating their passports and dole out violence to force women to work in prostitution or slave labour. This slavery is not just economic. When labour and debt enslavement, the exploitation of migrants and classic slavery are considered, the problem amounts to the largest violation of human rights in the world. Many others enter the country legally and overstay their authorised visit. They prepare to build lives in countries like Ireland where they can find work as unskilled labourers and maintain a lifestyle far above the level prevailing in the former Soviet or socialist states.

I envisage that this Bill will be instrumental in bringing such practices to an end. Its more open policy of immigration will help to curtail trafficking and cope with the wave of immigration that will not disappear in the medium to longer term. In common with other western European countries, Ireland will continue to need immigrants to compensate for declining birth rates and to fill a considerable need for unskilled labour and certain high-tech jobs. I submit that establishing annual quotas to fill vacant jobs is infinitely better than the immigration minimisation policy some EU countries have adopted.

Economic development could be adversely affected by recent decisions in relation to work permits, in particular the suspension of inter-company transfer schemes due to its abuse by certain employers. As a result, employers are now compelled to apply for work permits in respect of such transfers and the process can entail an extensive processing period of several months. Such difficulty in the routine transfers of legal employees can impact negatively on a company's competitiveness. I welcome the closing of the loophole that previously allowed employers to escape scot-free having employed persons without permits where such permits were required. I welcome also the creation of an offence in this regard to which severe penalties are attached.

The Bill safeguards Irish jobs by providing for the reintroduction during the seven year transition period of the permit requirement for workers from the EU accession states in circumstances where there might be a dramatic downturn in the Irish labour market. I would like to see the evolution of a system in which work per mits would be issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to individual employees instead of to employers. Some employers abuse the work permit system to place their employees in an invidious position and exploit them. I would prefer to see a system in which an employee's rights would be safeguarded to a much greater extent. I welcome this Bill.

Mr. O'Flynn

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Fearghaíl and Tony Dempsey.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Flynn

I have no difficulty with people coming into this country legally to work and live. As Deputies will know, I have had difficulty with people coming here illegally and I will be discussing this matter when the House considers the Immigration Bill 2002.

The purpose of the Employment Permits Bill is, primarily, to facilitate the granting of free access to the 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 employment permits to work in Ireland. The Bill also puts in place a safeguard mechanism whereby a requirement for employment permits can be reintroduced in respect of nationals of the relevant countries should the Irish labour market suffer a disturbance after EU enlargement. I have a difficulty with the fact that we must strike a delicate balance. We must protect our indigenous workers who are currently out of employment and we must encourage employers to hire Irish people where possible. The other difficulty I have is that, according to reports made to me, some Irish people may have difficulty in taking up jobs at different ends of the market. This is a concern. There are certain sectors in the service industries which depend wholly on workers from various countries who are legally here and have work permits.

The Bill incorporates a provision whereby for the first time a requirement for employment permits in respect of non-nationals working in Ireland is set out in primary legislation together with penalties for non-compliance by employers and employees. It is expected that the granting of free access to the labour market to nationals of accession states after EU enlargement will result in a work permit processing fee reduction of about 35% with consequent savings for potential employers. Despite the economic downturn which resulted in unemployment increasing to 4.4% last year, the number of applications has continued to climb, which leads me to feel concern for our own people. Are they being given the chance to take up employment, or are they applying for these jobs? Traditionally, Ireland has been a country of net emigration, however, increased prosperity resulted in the number of work permits issued growing from 3,617 in 1994 to 40,321 last year. It is worth noting that 16,500 were renewals for the year 2002, which was up 6,485 on 2001. That means people who were already here on the one year work permit were given renewals for a further year.

Over 40% of the permits granted last year involved jobs in low skill areas such as farming, construction and catering. It is important to record our gratitude to the Department officials who deal with work permits on a daily basis. It is a fair process involving a numbering and a date system. Officials have been more than helpful and I hope the Minister will convey my sentiments to them. They assist public representatives to progress applications. I have assisted quite a number of employers and people to acquire work permits over the last number of years.

It is virtually certain that the labour market will continue to require workers to supplement the domestic labour pool, but I caution that a balance must be ensured. It is essential to include safeguards in the Employment Permits Bill which allow the reintroduction of the requirement for permits from EU countries in the case of a labour market disturbance following enlargement. Some 35% of current work permits are held by citizens of the EU accession countries and demand is expected to have dropped by this amount by next May. The Government's position is in line with other member states including Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, Spain, Luxembourg and Greece.

Some Members have spoken about the exploitation of workers by a small number of employers. It is important to state that the vast majority of employers respect, treat well and pay their workers a fair rate, be they indigenous or foreign nationals. We must recognise that a small number of employers have exploited the system. We should record our appreciation of employers who have created jobs and developed the economy along with the State.

I was interested in what FÁS had to say about work permits for immigrants. In January, FÁS called for an overhaul of the work permits system in order to better fit or fill skills shortages with qualified immigrants. Currently, the system allows the employer of any non-EU citizen who is offered work to apply for a work permit to employ that individual. In its labour market review of 2002, FÁS recommended a system similar to that used in Australia which links a permit application to skills shortages rather than to employment vacancies. Under the system proposed by FÁS, workers wishing to take up a job in Ireland would be awarded set points for skills they hold. The sum of points awarded for practical, language and education skills would provide for a far more targeted system which could better cope with skills shortages.

According to FÁS a similar work permit system is already in place in Australia and has allowed the authorities to direct immigrant labour to the sectors where it is required. The number of work permits issued to workers from outside the European Economic area had doubled to 36,500 last year and FÁS could not see the employment labour market growing by any more than 1.5%.

The Department last January said it did not envisage any changes but has the Minister given any thought to the FÁS proposals and will she make a statement to the House about them during the passage of the Bill?

I am concerned about another statement by the Small Firms' Association last Monday. It carried out a survey on employment needs and described the results as the worst on record. The association said that the number of projected new jobs this year were down from 36,238 to 17,420. Some 62% or 1,049 responding companies have no vacancies. In addition, part-time work available is down by 10% this year and by a massive 60% since 2001. Demand for foreign workers is down by 56% and the same percentage of firms cite unrealistic salary expectation as an obstacle to job creation. They project that this year the demand for labour will be 2.7% down from 6.5% in 2002 and from 7.8% in 2001 and 10.9% in 2000.

The results of this survey give a clear indication of what jobs are available. This survey was conducted by an important organisation representing thousands of small businesses. I am concerned about these statistics and about plans to open the labour market further with the accession next year of the ten extra states into the EU. The Minister should analyse these figures and study the response to the survey from small businesses. There should be mechanisms in place to ensure that the delicate balance between demand and supply is maintained.

Mr. Ó Fearghaíl

I thank my colleague, Deputy O'Flynn for sharing his time with me. The Employment Permits Bill is important for three reasons: it provides for full labour market access for the ten accession countries from May 2004; it substantially strengthens the existing arrangements for work permits generally; and it introduces for the first time significant penalties for employers who abuse the permits regime.

This legislation is being introduced against a background of EU expansion and of continuing labour market shortages as alluded to by many Members. Despite the economic slowdown this seems likely to continue for some time. Like many Members of this House I remember the bad old days of the mid-80s when emigration was the order of the day and when we were told our most talented young people had no option but to go to Boston or Berlin. It is very gratifying to see how our economy has grown and where we needed to bring in 40,321 non-European Economic Area workers just to sustain that level of growth. It is highly significant that just over one third of those who currently hold work permits hail from the ten accession countries with which our export trade has increased six-fold in recent years.

The enactment of this legislation will send a positive signal to our new EU partners with whom we will need to build and consolidate alliances in the future as we seek to protect Ireland's interests in an expanded Europe and as we work to increase our export markets.

The inclusion in the Bill of a provision for the re-introduction of permits in the event of a major upheaval in the labour market is a solid and prudent one. Its inclusion reflects a pragmatic approach to a situation in which we cannot have absolute certainty about the economic climate which will prevail post-enlargement.

Contrary to the predictions of some of the anti-Nice campaigners, we can be reasonably confident that we will not see a mass influx of workers into Ireland from accession countries. On a recent visit to Hungary, one of the accession states, I saw the determination of those accession countries to use their future Community membership – as Ireland has done over a long period – not to access other EU labour markets but to substantially enhance their local and national economies.

The Bill addresses the general issue of work permits for those originating outside the EEA and I am pleased the disparity which has existed between the position of the non-national working without a permit and that of his employer is addressed by making it an offence for the employer to employ a non-national without the appropriate documentation. Until now the illegal non-national working here was guilty of an offence but the employer in the position of advantage could walk away scot-free. It is entirely appropriate for the State to insist that there is a heavy responsibility on the employer to ensure his compliance with the law in the employment of non-European Economic Area nationals who are availing of a concession rather than a right to work here.

The introduction of a system of fines of up to €250,000 and ten year's imprisonment or both, for employers found guilty of hiring illegal workers, will act as a realistic deterrent to breaches of the law in this respect.

The experience of most migrant workers who come here to work is positive, as Deputy O'Flynn said. In my constituency of Kildare there are numbers of Moldovans employed in the meat industry, Ukranians in the agri-sector, Japanese and Koreans in the bloodstock industry and South Africans and Romanians in the hotel and catering sectors. It is worrying, to put it at its mildest, to read in the 2002 annual report of the Equality Authority that upwards of 25% of complaints of discrimination in the workplace are on the grounds of race. As we put in place a legal framework within which non-nationals may work here, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that those who avail of the option and thereby contribute to our continued well-being, do so in an environment where their presence is welcome and valued and where the spectre of discrimination or racism is not allowed to raise its ugly head. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. T. Dempsey

Gabhaim buíochas as ucht na deise a fháil labhairt ar an mBille seo mar tá sé an-tábhachtach, go speisialta do Chondae Loch Garman, ina bhfuil easpa oibrithe. Tá áthas orm le feiceáil go bhfuil mic léinn óga ó Ghaelscoil Charman anseo leis an díospóireacht inniu agus go gcloisfidh siad na tuairimí éagsúla atá ag a bpolaiteoirí faoin mBille seo.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Employment Permits Bill. I am pleased to see young people from Gaelscoil Wexford in the Public Gallery because this Bill is somewhat relevant to Wexford. There are areas of employment in Wexford where there is a huge shortage of employees and we are dependent on foreign workers. This Bill will allow non-nationals to work in Wexford.

The Irish saying "Más maith is mithid" is twofold in its impact; if it is good, it is also timely. I congratulate the Minister and her Ministers of State on the timeliness of this Bill. In recent months I have had representations from people in the fruit growing industry, the long haulage business and the hotel industry in Wexford. There is a huge shortage of employees and these businesses have been forced to apply to the Department continuously in recent years in order to obtain work permits.

The Bill will make it unnecessary for nationals of the EU accession states to apply for work permits. I was interested this morning to hear Deputy Murphy welcome the Bill, qualified though it was, and Deputy Morgan speak about how workers have been exploited, which is an important matter.

As the Tánaiste said, this Bill is about extending the hand of friendship and solidarity to the new states. In the past, this country has lived off emigration. I was one of many forced to emigrate and join many Irish workers in London, New York and so on. The young visitors here will not be familiar with that concept because they are used to hearing foreign accents and foreign languages around Wexford town, which was not the case during my youth.

Now that we are joining the wealthiest nations in the world, it is appropriate that we should extend the hand of friendship and solidarity in helping to build the new accession states. All of us have brothers and sisters abroad. Our economic success is probably due in part to emigrant remittances and to workers returning with new skills from New York, Boston or London. I hope that will be the experience of the new EU workers who will be able to come here from 1 May. The Tánaiste said in her speech that our experience to date is that most people who come to work here do so in a temporary capacity.

I thank the officials of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for their diligence and hard work in processing the permits currently required by people coming to work in Ireland from EU accession states. Despite their hard work, the need to scrutinise the applications result in a delay. Some 35% of applicants come from the new accession states, therefore, there will be a 35% reduction in the whole processing procedure. Apart from saving time, it will result in a saving of approximately €4 million, which is very important.

There are those who fear the legislation will result in a flood of immigrant employees to Ireland. To say that is to prove that one is unfamiliar with the fact that in 1994, 3,617 workers came to this country. In 2002 the number of immigrant workers had increased to 40,321. We are already welcoming such workers, 35% of whom come from the new accession states. We must legitimise what is happening and make it respectable to work in Ireland and have freedom of movement.

The Bill addresses for the first time the exploitation of workers hired by illegal employers. While these people have not been illegal to date, a minority of them have exploited people from abroad. Under the legislation, employers found guilty of hiring illegal workers can be fined up to €250,000 and, more important, can be sent to jail for ten years. I welcome that measure because it will protect unfortunate people. As a former emigrant, I know that people can be exploited.

The key issues for the new accession states centre around human rights, poverty and democracy. The Bill demonstrates our willingness as a modern democracy and successful economic entity to help to address these problems and provide some type of solution. The challenge is not just economic, it is also social. It would be a tragedy if the new-found political freedom of the new accession states, particularly the eastern European states, were undermined by desperate depths of poverty.

This is currently a very well off State. Unemployment levels have risen in recent years but are just 4.5%, compared to 7.9% in Europe. Lithuania faces the challenge of posed by its young people, 8,000 of whom are in Ireland. Táimid réidh chun cabhrú leis na tíortha nach bhfuil chomh saibhir lenár dtír dúchais féin anois. We are willing, ready and the Government has shown a willingness to help those who are not as wealthy as we are.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important legislation. As someone who has been involved with farming organisations all my life, I appreciate the benefits we have obtained from our involvement in the European Community since the early 1970s. Therefore, it is only right that we should extend the hand of friendship to countries which now wish to accede to the EU by opening up the labour market in general.

Obviously there are worries at present in regard to job losses. There was a meeting in my home town of Clones recently regarding the 140 jobs being lost in CPV, therefore some may ask why should we legalise the right of people to come into this country to work. I read with interest the Tánaiste's speech. I did not realise that of the 40,000 people who came here on work permits in 2002, 13,752 were from the accession countries. It brings me back to the late 1980s and early 1990s when the then Minister, the late Brian Lenihan, said 40,000 of our best and well educated young people were finding good jobs in countries throughout the world. It is important to remember that most of these people got a reasonably good welcome in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in parts of Europe. In the 1950s our people emigrated without education or money. We need to remember that when some Members criticise and perhaps instigate anger against people who come to work and live in this country. I appreciate there are illegal immigrants who should not be here. However, we could not have built up this country in the way we did were it not for the contributions of people who came to work here. I found it interesting that the figure of 40,000 in 2002 was similar to the number of people we exported in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

We must take into account the anxieties of small firms in regard to insurance costs, economic factors and so on because some worry that jobs will not be available for our own people. I am pleased there is a stipulation in the Bill to curtail the flow of immigrants into this country in the future if the need arises. Those who opposed the Nice treaty said we would be flooded with people from the rest of Europe if we voted for the treaty. I was interested to hear some people who campaigned against the treaty admit that has not been the case. It is important that we retain the right to curtail the numbers coming into the country if it is considered necessary in the future.

It is also important that all workers in the country, be they Irish or immigrant, are treated in a similar manner. This morning I consulted a person involved in the retail business who is aware of the situation in Clones. I was advised that employers would like to give employment to Irish workers if at all possible, but they sometimes find it impossible to get them to work in the retail trade, especially when late and long hours and weekend work is involved. They would find it very hard to run their businesses in the absence of legal workers on permit. These workers fulfil a role.

The Cavan-Monaghan constituency is the home of the mushroom and poultry industries. It would be much more difficult to keep them going in the absence of "permit" workers. They are not high paying industries and young graduates do not want to work in them, with the result that vacancies have had to be filled by workers coming into the country under permit. If it is the case that the €500 charge that had to be paid by the horticulture industry on behalf of these workers has been discharged I welcome it. It was a surcharge the industry could not afford.

The mushroom industry competes in the United Kingdom market with products imported from other countries, such as Hungary and Poland, where the work force is paid much less. A few years ago I visited these countries as part of a delegation from the Oireachtas Joint Com mittee on Social and Family Affairs. The personnel we met in Hungary were pleased to have secured agreement on a minimum wage of €200 per month at a time when the minimum wage here was £170 week. I hope that following accession to the European Union, workers in these countries will be able to work at home for increased wages. In the meantime if we can provide them with opportunities we should do so.

When I visited Poland I saw farming structures requiring an intensive labour component of the kind that prevailed in this country in the 1940s and 1950s. A delegation from Slovenia is visiting the Oireachtas and I hope to meet it shortly to discuss the situation here and the opportunities for co-operation. We must extend the hand of friendship to the accession countries. This Bill is a part of that process.

Previous speakers, including Deputy O'Flynn, who made a name for himself on the immigration issue, referred to the delays in issuing permits. I agree with Deputy O'Flynn that the staff in the permits processing office is helpful. However, if the system was working as it should, Deputies would not have to contact the office on behalf of employers and employees. There is a need to look at this aspect.

When workers come in to the country on permit they should be allowed the freedom to move to new employment if necessary. Sometimes this has happened illegally, which is of no benefit to anybody. The Bill should provide for a mechanism to allow for transfer, which would be of mutual benefit to employers and employees. It can often be difficult for an agency to decide on a correct match between an employer and employee. If it does not work it is not in the interests of either party that they should stay together. Any mechanism that seeks to address this should ensure there is no necessity for either party to behave in an illegal manner.

The question of labour shortages has affected not only the mushroom industry but the entire food processing and retail industries. Workers at the various boning halls have played a major role. If some of them want to stay in the country for the longer term they should be allowed to set up their own businesses. They should not be confined to the work to which they were initially allocated. If necessary, they should be allowed to become self employed and should be treated like any other citizen.

Immigrant workers have been, and are, used in the hotel and catering industries. In some hotels in this city and elsewhere I have found it difficult to deal with the personnel, for example, those looking after the bars or restaurants. It is in the interests of the industry to ensure that such workers get proper training and are reasonably fluent in the language. Many in this country speak in different dialects and accents and it is sometimes difficult for us to understand each other, which underlines the importance of ensuring that immigrant workers are properly trained. It is unfair to the industry and the workers if there is a language barrier between those working in the industry and those using it, especially tourists.

Other Deputies referred to illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants have caused major problems in some parts of the country. I understand everything possible is being done to prevent them from entering the country. However, when they arrive here they must wait a considerable time to deal with the immigration services. They should be allowed to work on short-term permits. It annoys many that they receive social welfare payments and benefits. According to those on social welfare, many of them are better looked after. There is a view in the media that this is causing some of the problems and Deputy O'Flynn and others have referred to this.

Debate adjourned.