Written Answers. - Visa Applications.
Michael Ring
Question:
1143
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
his plans to change the law in relation to au pairs; if he will consider the introduction of au pair visas being stamped for two years, rather than one year; and if the onus will be put on the agencies to notify the Government if au pairs here do not fulfil their contract.
[20045/03]
Michael Ring
Question:
1144
Mr. Ring
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
when the Government will sign the treaty on the European agreement on au pair placement.
[20046/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1143 and 1144 together.
According to the website of the Council of Europe only six of its 45 member states have ratified the 1969 European Agreement on Au Pair Placement. They are Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway and Spain. Luxembourg denounced the agreement with effect from March this year. There are no immediate plans, on my part, to propose to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that Government approval be sought for ratification of this agreement. Ratification of the agreement would require the establishment of an authority – the essential purpose of which is to monitor the welfare of the au pairs in question. The agreement is not based on reciprocity and those states which are parties to it are bound to extend its protection to all non-nationals including EU nationals who are largely exempt from immigration control. Thus ratification of the agreement would involve issues for a number of Departments.
With regard to permission to remain for au pairs for a two year period, the position is that the question of granting permission to remain does not arise in the case of nationals of EU countries or nationals of Iceland, Liechenstein, Norway or Switzerland who are here as au pairs. From 1 May 2004 it will no longer arise for nationals of the ten accession countries. It seems, in relation to nationals of other countries, that the essence of the Deputy's question is that the immigration authorities should grant a blanket two year permission to remain on the premise that recruitment agencies will notify the immigration authorities of any change in the position.
The idea of granting more limited permission – which can be extended – is to allow Garda registration officers to monitor the presence of the persons in question and to ensure that the stated purpose of their presence in the State remains their true purpose. Even the aforementioned European agreement states in its preamble that au pairs are neither students nor workers but belong to a special category which has features of both. The host family is required to pay the au pair in question an unspecified sum of money and to give the person in question adequate time to attend language courses. There is no specific obligation on the au pair to attend such courses. A danger at present for example is that certain persons, whose sole function is childminding, might seek to style themselves as au pairs. This is because since last April the policy of the Department of Enterprise Trade and Employment has been not to issue work permits in respect of childminders. This policy followed an intensive analysis of the skills profile of job seekers with FÁS.
It should also be borne in mind that an au pair arrangement is not predicated on the involvement of a third party such as an agency. Even the aforementioned 1969 European agreement, which deals with a form of placement which is quite restricted, envisages a contractual relationship between a host family, and an au pair. Second, some agencies which are involved in the recruitment of au pairs are also involved in the recruitment of childminders and nannies. For that reason I would not be in favour of the Deputy's proposal.
