Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 May 2014

Vol. 842 No. 1

Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill 2014: Second Stage

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill to this House. The employment permits system is intended to act as a conduit for key skills required to develop enterprise in the State for all of our benefit, while simultaneously protecting the balance of the labour market and the employment rights of migrants who come to work here. In particular, the momentum of the development of the ICT sector, with its expansion into every aspect of our professional and personal lives, creates a skills demand that must be met in part by attracting migrants with expertise across the whole range of ICT occupations. In the context of ICT careers, Ireland is part of a global race for talent - we are increasingly competing for inward investment and export opportunities on the basis of the quality of our workforce. Ireland is likely to face an average increase in demand for high-level ICT skills of around 5% a year out to 2018, with the employment of ICT professionals anticipated to rise to just over 91,000. The recently inaugurated ICT skills action plan 2014-18 looks to meet the challenge of increasing the availability of ICT expertise across the economy though education, upskilling and conversion, but also through inward migration of appropriately skilled personnel. One of the ambitions is to increase the proportion of those skills that can be provided from our education institutions from 40% in 2011 to 74%. It is an ambitious programme to increase the output of qualified ICT experts from our colleges.

The specificity and the flexibility that will be built into this Bill and subsequent regulations will contribute to the positioning of Ireland as a locus where a highly skilled and highly remunerated workforce employed by cutting edge enterprises can be recruited. Retaining relevance in the fast-moving, globalised and technically innovative enterprise environment of the 21st century requires not only the fostering of indigenous talent but the ability to attract the innovators and the experienced from elsewhere to deepen the skills pool here, with the knock-on effect that will have on the extent and the reach of enterprises located in Ireland. From my experience working with companies that invest, it takes a dynamic pool of a mixture of talents from abroad, with deep domain expertise in certain areas, combined with domestic talent. This makes a hub that can transform the performance of particular enterprises. We seek to be such a hub and a centre of excellence.

The categories of employment permits envisaged by this Bill will provide for a range of types of migrant workers to enter employment legally in the State. Key among these for the purpose of developing the skills capacity of the labour force will be a replacement for the green card currently issued for specified highly skilled occupations. This category of permit, to be known as the critical skills employment permit, seeks to attract highly skilled non-EEA workers in occupations where there are acknowledged skills shortages, often on a global scale, by waiving a number of the requirements otherwise applying to the issue of employment permits, and providing a route to immediate family unification, fast-track residency and the availability of employment permits to spouses, dependants or partners where this might be required. The advantages such an employment permit confer on its holder are commensurate with the contribution such personnel can make to the development of the enterprises for which they choose to work, a benefit that ultimately feeds more broadly into our society through the dissemination of expertise among colleagues and through enterprise growth.

The arrival of highly skilled individuals to fill capacity gaps here in the short to medium term is to be welcomed. In the longer term, while we expect to increase the numbers of appropriately skilled graduates in sectors such as ICT where there are skills shortages, there will always be a cohort of knowledge leaders, or those with a novel combination of skill sets that it would be advantageous to attract to work in Irish based enterprises. Data analytics is a good example. Ireland is now beginning to build up a reputation in data analytics, with a number of investors. Today, SAP, an innovative company with a significant hub for data analytics, is expanding on the basis of the skills base it has created, which shows its relevance and importance. The capacity to analyse data will become a key shaper of what businesses succeed and what businesses can exploit the information at their disposal. To see Ireland emerge as a centre of excellence for the development of such a skill base in a company of the scale of SAP shows the importance of what we are doing in the education sphere and of having this legislation in place.

The Bill also accommodates the contemporary workplace by acknowledging the different types of employment situations which arise for enterprise. It furnishes a general employment permit for shorter term employment contracts for highly skilled occupations and, subject to a labour market needs test to establish that there are no viable local or EEA applicants for the employment, for other occupations outside of a list of occupations designated ineligible for employment permits. It also establishes employment permits for intra-company transfers and contracts for service, acknowledging the global and interconnected ways that enterprises now interact. We will have the high skills permit and areas for which we cannot issue permits, such as areas in which there are no skills shortages. There will be another category where an application can be made but the case must be established that the skill is necessary and the position cannot be filled by applicants within the EEA.

This legislation has been devised to assist Ireland's participation in what is essentially a global skills market. Equally, its drafting has been informed by the fact that the labour force has been through some turbulent years and that preference must be given, wherever possible, to Irish and EEA nationals in the awarding of contracts of employment. This priority is protected by the inclusion of a number of conditions for the issue of an employment permit, chief among which are the labour market needs test and the 50:50 rule. The labour market needs test makes it a condition of grant that an employer must prove to my satisfaction that he or she has in the first instance made the employment in question available to Irish and EEA nationals and that no viable candidate was found from this process. The 50:50 rule requires that any enterprise wishing to employ a non-EEA national must have a staff comprising more than 50% Irish or EEA nationals. This 50:50 rule is only waived for start-up companies and, even then, only for a limited period where one of the enterprise development agencies has supported such a waiver. Often the first few employees will be the team from headquarters establishing the operation in Ireland. There are further protections for the labour market provided for in the Bill such as minimum remuneration thresholds and limits to the duration of various permit types.

This amendment Bill rebalances and updates earlier legislation in order to support the complex and evolving market for skills. At the same time, it ensures both employers and employees are held to a series of standards in regard to the particulars of the employment and rights guaranteed to the employee in the context of the employment. While acknowledging the value of the Bill in growing the economy, we must also affirm the importance of protecting vulnerable migrants who often do not have the personal support networks or the familiarity with employment practices here to protect their own interests. The Bill amends the 2003 Act to provide a defence for a migrant who is in breach of employment permit legislation, despite his or her efforts to work in line with statutory requirements.

The amendments address the Younis case judgment delivered on 31 August 2012, in which Mr. Justice Hogan overturned a decision of the Labour Court to award Mr. Younis, an immigrant, back pay and other moneys. The High Court found that the contract of employment was unlawful by reason of his failure to have an employment permit. As a result of the proposed amendments, provision is made to prevent an employer from benefiting from a contract of employment that is unenforceable for the lack of an employment permit at the expense of a migrant worker. It will be open, under this statute, for the employee or, in certain circumstances, the Minister on the employee's behalf, to seek recompense in such a situation via the courts.

More generally, the Bill establishes a category of employment permit to assist those migrants who have fallen out of the employment permits system through no fault of their own to return to employment. From a policy perspective, such foreign nationals may be at risk of entering the hidden economy and-or becoming a burden on the State's welfare system if not permitted to work. These permits will be known as reactivation employment permits and they will be issued, subject to the approval of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, in cases where there is a genuine situation meriting consideration of an employment permit, whether it be humanitarian considerations, linkages with the local community or family or other circumstances affecting the individual involved and where it is not counter to the public interest to grant such an employment permit.

A number of criteria will apply to the granting of such permits, including that the foreign national originally entered the labour market legally with an employment permit, is not working illegally and has a real offer of employment. However, in order to maintain an employment environment which is consistent with the employment rights regime pertaining in the State and to retain coherence with the general employment permits system which is in place to benefit the State, it is envisaged that some of the strictures generally applying to employment permits will remain in place, including the 50:50 rule. In addition, to prevent abuse, the Bill gives the Minister the power to restrict the number of such permits and refuse such a permit if the applicant has used the scheme before and that it is in the public interest to refuse.

Other employment permit types will be established by the legislation to accommodate social and cultural development in the State. To this end, the Bill provides for a sports and cultural employment permit to allow persons from the spheres of sports and culture to take up employment in the State; an exchange agreement employment permit to enable non-EEA citizens to participate in various reciprocal exchanges; and an internship employment permit which will allow students of foreign institutions to gain short-term employment experience in occupations on the highly skilled occupations list where the internship is integral to their degree course. The number of permits annually in these categories is small.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill which consists of four Parts and 33 sections. For the convenience of Deputies, a detailed explanatory memorandum has been published and it provides a synopsis of the provisions included in the Bill.

Part 1 contains the Short Title, collective citation, construction and commencement provisions and interpretation. Part 2 amends the Act of 2003 and addresses issues raised by the Younis case. Section 3 amends section 2 of the Act of 2003 to provide a defence for a foreign national to the charge of having been employed without an employment permit that the foreign national took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the section, similar to the defence provision in respect of the employer. Section 4 amends the Act of 2003 by inserting an additional section 2B to further deter employers from employing foreign nationals without an employment permit by permitting the foreign national to take a civil action for compensation against the employer, notwithstanding the illegality of the contract. This is in addition to potential criminal prosecution of the employer. The Bill provides that a foreign national who can satisfy a court that he or she took all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement of having an employment permit may take a civil action for compensation against the employer for work done or services rendered. The compensation for such work or services is to be calculated by a court by reference to the national minimum hourly rate of pay or any other rate of pay which is fixed under or pursuant to any enactment. Also, the compensation paid shall not be treated as reckonable emoluments. This is to avoid any entitlement to claim for State benefits on the part of the foreign national concerned because it remains the case that this is an illegal contract of employment. The compensation paid does not fall outside the tax net. A new section 124A, to be inserted in the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 by section 31 of the Bill, will put the taxation of the compensation beyond doubt. Additionally, the Bill provides that the Minister may take a civil action on the foreign national's behalf, as well as the responsibility for the costs of such action. The power to make an application for compensation on behalf of the foreign national is at the Minister's discretion and in addition to and separate from existing prosecutorial powers.

Part 3 amends the Act of 2006 to provide for the employment permit system and give a clear legal basis for having different types of employment permit for different purposes and additional criteria and rules in determining whether to refuse or grant an application for an employment permit; to strengthen the requirement for employers to consider EEA nationals before foreign nationals by removing the existing distinction between applications by foreign nationals and applications by employers; and to focus on the particular needs of start-up companies, provide necessary flexibility within key sectors of economic growth and make provision for the role IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland play in enterprise development and job creation.

Section 6 inserts new sections 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F into the 2006 Act. Section 3A sets out the different purposes for which employment permits can be granted. Section 3A(2)(a) provides for the purpose of what is currently the green card scheme. This type of employment permit is intended to attract those foreign nationals with skills that are in short supply in Ireland and which are critical to our economic success such as ICT skills. It is intended that such employment permits will in the future be called critical skills employment permits.

Section 3A(2)(b) provides for the purpose for what is currently called the spousal or dependant employment permit. It is intended that such employment permits will in the future be called dependant, partner or spouse employment permits. This type of employment permit is intended to attract foreign nationals to apply for the critical skills employment permits by making provision for members of their immediate family to work in the State. This employment permit type is also designed to provide for the family members of certain types of researcher under Council Directive 2005/71/EC which provides for the admission of Third Country researchers to EU member states for the purpose of carrying out research.

Section 3A(2)(c) provides for the purpose for what is currently called the work permit. While this employment permit currently covers a range of sub-categories, for example, contracts for service providers and sports professionals, the Bill clarifies that this type of employment permit will be provided for persons with skills of a more general nature where it is proved, among other things, that the employer was unable to fill the position from the labour market. It is intended that such employment permits will in the future be called general employment permits. These permits will also issue for occupations on the highly skilled occupations list where the employment contract is for less than the two years required for a critical skills employment permit.

Section 3A(2)(d) provides for the purpose for the intra-company transfer employment permit. This employment permit facilitates transfers between branches of a company for a specified duration and project. Such employment permits are particularly important in start-up FDI situations where often the first few employees will be the team from headquarters establishing the operation in Ireland.

Section 3A(2)(e) provides for the purpose for what is currently a type of work permit dealing with contracts for service providers. These facilitate the temporary employment in Ireland of foreign nationals working in a company based outside Ireland. Such companies typically have won a contract for services with an Irish company.

Section 3A(2)(f) provides for the purpose for what is currently a type of work permit dealing with applications routed through Migrant Rights Centre Ireland on behalf of foreign nationals who entered the labour market with a valid employment permit but who have subsequently fallen out of the system for a variety of reasons, including redundancy, exploitation and ignorance.

Section 3A(2)(g) provides for the purpose for what is currently a type of work permit dealing with reciprocal international arrangements where opportunities are afforded to Irish nationals in exchange for opportunities afforded to foreign nationals, for example, trade agreements which include labour transfers, exchange agreements concerning researchers or student work experience. It is intended that such employment permits will in the future be called exchange agreement employment permits.

Section 3A(2)(h) provides for the purpose for what is currently a type of work permit dealing with applications related predominantly to sports professionals. It is intended that such permits will in the future be called sports and cultural employment permits. Section 3F permits the Minister to consult other bodies in this regard.

Section 3A(2)(i) provides for the purpose for what is currently a type of work permit dealing with applications related to student internship programmes involving work experience in employments on the highly skilled occupations list. It is intended that such employment permits will in the future be called internship employment permits.

Section 3B provides for a new provision in the Act of 2006 which recognises the role IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland currently play in giving advice on applications made by their client companies and provides for the Minister to consider their recommendations without being bound by them.

Section 3C sets out the conditions applying to dependant, partner and spouse employment permits. These permits are provided for the spouses, civil partners or dependants of holders of critical skills employment permits and researchers and dependent on the continued permission of the critical skills employment permit holder and researcher to be employed in the State.

Sections 3D and 3E provide for minimum periods of employment of foreign nationals with the foreign employer prior to applications for employment permits in respect of intra-company transfers and contracts for service agreements.

Section 3F permits the Minister to consult those whom the Minister considers to have knowledge or expertise in respect of a sports and cultural employment permit application.

Section 7 amends section 4 of the 2006 Act. The amendments relate to applications for employment permits made in respect of contracts for service agreements and intra-company transfers. The amendments provide that the contractor in the contract for services situation or the connected person, the linked company in the State into which an employee is transferred under an intra-company transfer arrangement, will apply for an employment permit. The section also ensures every application will specify the purpose for which the employment permit is sought and sets a minimum job offer period of two years for employment permits under section 3A(2)(a), the critical skills employment permit. In addition, the section provides for the spouse, dependant or partner of a "green card" holder in force immediately prior to the commencement of the Bill to apply for a dependant, partner or spouse employment permit after enactment.

Section 8 replaces the current sections 6 and 7 of the 2006 Act concerning information to be provided with an application. It ensures the Minister can require a broad range of documents and other supporting information. Later the Bill enables the refusal of an application where such information is not forthcoming.

Section 9 amends section 8 of the 2006 Act which sets out what permission the employment permit grants to the foreign national in terms of his or her employment in the State, as well as the duration of the employment permit. The amendments update the references to other sections and provide for different durations for the specified types of employment permit.

Section 10 amends section 9 of the 2006 Act which concerns the type of information to be included in an employment permit. The amendment permits the Minister to include any additional information considered appropriate.

Section 11 amends section 10 of the 2006 Act which provides powers to restrict the granting of an employment permit on the basis of what is commonly known as the labour market needs test and the 50:50 rule. The labour market needs test is dealt with in the new section 10A to be inserted by section 12.

The 50:50 rule requires employers seeking to hire foreign nationals on an employment permit to have at least 50% of their workforce from Ireland or the EEA. This policy underpins the Government's employment creation objectives by requiring employers in the State to hire in a balanced manner from the local labour market and fulfils our EU obligations regarding Community preference under the treaties. The amendment requires the 50:50 rule to be applied in all situations, except in the case of a start-up company, that is, a company registered with the Revenue Commissioners within the two years preceding the application, where an enterprise development agency recommends the granting of the employment permit and where the Minister is satisfied that to do so would help to develop the potential for further employment. Often, start-up companies, including those arising by reason of foreign direct investment, will initially be made up solely of foreign nationals from the company's headquarters sent to Ireland to set up and establish operations. It would be counterproductive to insist that they meet the 50:50 rule from the outset. Section 21 provides for safeguards by imposing a limit on the duration of the renewed permit. If the company has not reached the 50:50 ratio at renewal stage, it must meet the 50:50 rule within one year.

Section 12 amends the Act of 2006 by inserting a new section 10A to deal with the labour market needs test. The amendments will ensure such tests will apply to relevant applications for employment permits, irrespective of who makes the application. The labour market needs test seeks to ensure an offer of employment is first made to people already in the local and EEA labour markets before an application is made for an employment permit to employ a non-EEA national. This supports Government policy that those currently in the labour market, be they employed or unemployed, are the first cohort employers should consider. The labour market needs test will, subject to the specified exceptions, apply to general employment permits and employment permits relating to contracts for service agreements. In effect, this will increase the current proportion of employment permit applications undergoing a labour market needs test after enactment. Section 10A also provides that the Minister may make regulations for the requirements of the labour market needs test.

Section 13 amends section 11 of the 2006 Act which concerns the matters to which the Minister must have regard when considering an application. The amendment adds a provision in order that consideration will include the purposes specified in section 3A(2) to be inserted by section 6.

Section 14 amends section 12 of the 2006 Act which provides the grounds for refusing to grant or renew an employment permit. There are two classes of amendment: those relating to issues identified in the operation of the current Acts and those which are consequential on the amendments to the Acts made by the Bill and, in particular, section 3A. Some of the amendments introduce new grounds, while others broaden the scope of existing grounds.

Section 15 amends section 13 of the 2006 Act to give the Minister the power to review a refusal to grant a permit. This provision is considered necessary to address a situation that gave rise to judicial review proceedings, whereby the employer, as the applicant, had refused to appeal a decision not to grant a permit.

Section 16 amends section 14 of the 2006 Act which provides the Minister with regulation-making powers to provide for each type of employment permit and regulate for different requirements to apply, depending on the type of employment permit and the different circumstances involved.

Section 17 inserts a new section 14A into the Act of 2006, which ensures that when making regulations in respect of remuneration, the Minister can: take into account the going rate in the marketplace for such employments and other benefits provided by an employer in respect of the remuneration package; and refuse to grant a permit if the remuneration offered is less than the minimum annual remuneration specified in regulations in respect of the employment concerned. The refusal ground to which I refer is regardless of whether the hours of work for the employment concerned are equal to or fewer than 39 per week. If the weekly hours of work for the employment concerned exceed 39, the minimum annual remuneration must be increased pro rata. This underpins the public policy prerogative that a foreign national should be earning sufficient remuneration to prevent his or her recourse to the social welfare system.

Section 18 amends section 15 of the Act of 2006, which identifies the criteria the Minister may consider in regulating under section 14. The section already provides for criteria such as the sectors that are important for economic and social development and labour market surpluses and shortages. The amendments strengthen the provisions of the 2006 Act by providing regulation-making power in respect of the experience of a foreign national as a criterion. The amendment to which I refer tidies up the section on foot of other amendments. Section 19 amends section 16 of the Act of 2006 by providing for additional grounds for the revocation of an employment permit.

Section 20 amends section 19 of the Act of 2006 by deleting the distinction in that Act in respect of applications by foreign nationals. Various other sections of the Bill make similar deletions, including sections 23 and 24. This will have the effect of ensuring that all applications, be they from employers or employees, will be treated on an equal basis and will be subject to the same rules when being considered for an employment permit.

Section 21 amends section 20 of the Act of 2006, which deals with the renewal of employment permits and sets out the circumstances in respect of which a permit may or may not be renewed. Importantly, the amended section 20 applies the 50:50 rule to all renewal applications in respect of permits issued following enactment. This is consistent with, and further to, the policy as set out under section 11 of the Bill. Nonetheless, the section exempts renewal applications of existing pre-enactment permits from the 50:50 rule on the basis that, at the time the initial application was made, neither the employer nor the foreign national could have foreseen this new requirement. In addition, the amendment provides the Minister with an opportunity to verify that the waiving of the 50:50 rule for start-up companies has not resulted in a negative effect in terms of the balance of the workforce concerned. I am obliged to refuse to renew employment permits if the employer has not reached the 50:50 rule threshold within two years of the first employment permit being granted, unless an enterprise development agency has made a recommendation under section 3(B) and I, as Minister, am satisfied that the renewal of the employment permit will contribute to further development of employment in the State. If the Minister renews a permit on foot of such a recommendation, the renewal will be for a period of one year. If, within that year, the employer achieves the 50:50 balance, a further renewal of two years may be granted.

Section 22 inserts three new sections - 20A, 20B and 20C - into the Act of 2006. These give an additional six months to a foreign national who has been made redundant to find employment and apply for a new permit. They also exempt a foreign national from certain rules that would otherwise apply such as, for example, the labour market needs test and eligibility criteria in respect of the job.

Sections 23 and 24 amend sections 23 and 24, respectively, of the Act of 2006 by removing references to applications by foreign nationals. This will ensure that all applications, be they from employers or employees, will be treated on an equal basis and will subject to the same rules when being considered for an employment permit.

Section 25 tidies and updates the provisions of section 27 of the Act of 2006 in relation to the requirements on an employer to retain records for inspection. Section 26 amends section 28 of the Act of 2006 concerning the type of information that the Minister may retain in respect of the operation of the employment permit system. The current legislation includes terms such as "employers", "foreign nationals" and "contractors" whereas the new legislation provides for other parties including "relevant person", who is the person who has entered into a contract with a service provider, and "connected person", who is the linked company in the State into which an employee foreign national is transferred under an intra-company transfer arrangement. This section updates the provision to include these new terms, where relevant.

Section 27 amends section 29 of the Act of 2006, which provides for regulations setting out the process and information requirements for the making of an application for an employment permit. Section 28 amends section 30 of the Act of 2006, which sets out further provisions concerning regulations. Section 29 amends section 31 of the Act of 2006 to allow for the issue of notices or documents by ordinary prepaid post instead of registered prepaid post. Section 30 amends section 37 of the Act of 2006 to provide for the sharing of information with the Garda Síochána that the Minister holds in addition to those already specified in the section.

Part 4 of the Bill makes an amendment to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, repeals a number of provisions of the 2006 Act and provides for transitional arrangements in respect of employment permits already in force. Section 31 amends the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Section 31(a) inserts a new section 124A in the 1997 Act and seeks to impose an income tax charge on any payments made under a court order under new section 2B of the Act of 2003 and to have the PAYE system applied to the payments. Section 31(b) puts beyond doubt that the exemption provided for in section 192A of the 1997 Act does not apply to payments made under a court order under section 2B of the Act of 2003.

Section 32 repeals a number of existing provisions, primarily in order to remove the distinction between applications by foreign nationals and employers. It also repeals section 35(2) of the Act of 2006, which provides for evidence given in proceedings for an offence under the Act to be video recorded. This is necessary because video recording is no longer required. Section 33 provides for transitional arrangements and savings in respect of employment permits that are in force immediately before the coming into operation of this section.

I would be happy to expand on any of the provisions during the course of this debate, if Deputies wish to raise any particular issues. We will have an opportunity to examine the Bill in detail on Committee Stage.

Before the Minister concludes, may I just check whether the Bill was the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation?

The Bill predates the legislative scrutiny requirement.

The heads of the Bill were published prior to the relevant date.

I look forward to the contributions of Deputies during the debate and to the co-operation of the House in securing the legislation's early enactment.

I commend this Bill to the House.

I call Deputy Troy who has 30 minutes - should he require them - for his contribution.

I will not require 30 minutes. I am here in place of Deputy Calleary who cannot be present. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. While Fianna Fáil broadly supports its provisions, we will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage.

We are all acutely aware of the importance of the information and communications technology sector to the economy. If the sector is to thrive, it is important that it have the best possible range of skilled people available to recruit. It is worth highlighting that the expert group on future skills needs report, published in November 2013, projects that there will be more than 44,500 potential job openings for ICT professionals in Ireland during the period from 2013 to 2018. These include almost 20,400 potential job openings for both new graduates and skilled professionals between 2013 and 2015. Fianna Fáil fully supports the idea of making Ireland the Internet capital of Europe. Many of the firms which operate so successfully in the ICT field first began their Irish operations during the lifetime of the previous Government. It is important that the growth of the sector should not be impeded by a lack of available suitably skilled staff. In this regard, the reduced processing time for permit applications is to be welcomed. When launching the Bill, the Minister stated, "Our ambition ... is to fill as many of those [the 44,500 potential openings to which I refer] as we can from the Irish-based education system – 75 per cent is our target." That is a very ambitious target.

The role of the Department of Education and Skills is critical in this regard as it must ensure there are sufficient numbers of Irish graduates with the required skills to take up these roles as they become available. I am unconvinced that we are as far down the track as we should be in this regard. The design and delivery of information and communications technology courses at university are critical to success in achieving this target. We need to hear from the Minister for Education and Skills on how he intends to achieve this target and what he has done to date. The history of third level courses in this country suggests they have been slow to adapt to market needs and we must ensure that does not happen in this case. Every support should be given to persons who are willing to go back to the education system, retrain and make themselves available in this sector. Supports should be in place for them and it is critical that the target the Minister has set himself, that is, for 75% of vacancies to be filled through the workforce, is met.

I am pleased that the Minister is addressing the issues raised in the Younis case. In this case an employee had his claim for €96,000 in compensation granted by the rights commissioner overturned by the High Court on the basis that he did not have a valid work permit and, therefore, was not entitled to protection under Irish legislation. There was widespread fear that this ruling would see employers exploit this deficiency in the legislation by hiring workers without work permits and paying them less than the minimum wage. This was an appalling case and it is unfortunate that it has taken the Minister two years to address what is an obvious deficiency in the law. We support the provisions to close off this loophole.

We also welcome the new category of employment permit for spouses, civil partners and dependants to enable family members of holders of critical skills employment permits and researchers to work in the State. When someone is making a decision to relocate and take up an employment opportunity, he or she must consider many other factors, including whether his or her family can travel with him or her. This is an overdue reform which should help to underpin the other provisions.

When discussing the issue of making it attractive for people to come to Ireland to take up employment opportunities, there are issues to consider besides the provision of employment visas. In particular, the cost of living is an increasing factor that influences people's decision on where to locate. In the Grand Canal Dock area of Dublin there is a large population working in the ICT sector with firms such as Google, Facebook and eBay who are located in the vicinity. I have heard reports that many newly arrived persons looking to take up employment locally have encountered considerable difficulty in obtaining suitable accommodation at a reasonable price. While this issue is outside the scope of the Bill, it is nonetheless an important factor in ensuring we can meet the demand for ICT employees. Just as we need to get employment legislation correct, including the law relating to permits, we also need to ensure those filling vacancies enjoy an appropriate quality of life and standard of living. This may prove increasingly difficult in years ahead if we do not address issues around the cost of renting and other cost of living issues, including the marginal rate of tax.

While the issue of attracting highly skilled employees in the ICT sector is the focus of this legislation, it would be remiss of us not to give consideration to the plight of persons not in the high skills arena. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland has highlighted the fact that many in the low-pay sectors of the economy who are the holders of employment permits are potentially subject to exploitation by employers. It has stated:

Binding a worker to one employer under the current employment permits system is a leading factor in the exploitation of migrant workers. Denying workers the freedom to change employer is also a major cause of workers becoming undocumented.

This is a valid opinion, one that I am keen to see the Minister address.

I welcome the Bill which is an important reform of employment legislation. I look forward to my colleague, Deputy Dara Calleary, bringing forward constructive amendments on Committee Stage.

I wish to raise an issue related to this legislation, the ongoing crisis in Paris Bakery. Shockingly, six years into the crisis we are still confronted with workers who, through no fault of their own, are not being paid for work done and who are not granted holiday and redundancy entitlements, etc. by unscrupulous employers. We are still faced with a regulation and legislation gap and a result fail to uphold their rights. A wall of redundancies has hit the State during this period. Each of these situations - tens of thousands of people are affected - is a fiercely traumatic experience and leads to income insecurity, reductions in standards of living for those involved and their families, as well as the associated stress of meeting financial commitments. There is a particular sharpness to the experience of a subset of this group, amounting to thousands of workers, because they are left with nothing. They are left with no safety net to prevent them falling as they lose their jobs. That is why some 24 months ago I tabled legislation in the Dáil which would have prevented the experience of the staff of Paris Bakery and safeguarded their rights. Simply put, I sought to ensure workers would get what they were entitled to. That is why it is difficult for people when they hear the words of Fine Gael and the Labour Party on this issue. These words ring hollow because two years ago the Government opposed legislation tabled by Sinn Féin which would have resolved these issues. I call on the Minister to ensure the necessary safeguards are put in place as soon as possible and that we will not be subjected to hollow words from the Government on this issue in the future.

The Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill is important legislation, specifically because of the inequity in workers' rights. In 2012 Mr. Justice Hogan found that existing employment permits legislation left undocumented migrant employees of rogue employers in a precarious position. Under the 2003 Act, these singularly vulnerable workers are automatically guilty of an offence for taking up employment without a permit. In short, the existing legislation automatically prohibits any defence or recompense where wrongdoing by an employer has occurred. Let us not forget the dire circumstances of the man at the centre of the case in question after he arrived to Ireland from Pakistan in 2002. Muhammad Younis worked seven days a week for pocket money in his cousin's restaurant until in 2009 he sought the assistance of Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. During this seven year period his employer did not regularise his employment and retained his passport. The Labour Court found in his favour and he was awarded €91,000 in compensation and back pay, yet when his reprobate employer sought a judicial review, it was found that the current legislation provided no saving clause, as noted by Mr. Justice Hogan, for this most vulnerable migrant worker.

Naturally, this was not a legislative revelation to either this or previous Governments. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland has been highlighting this loophole in the legislation since 2006. That said, the Minister's action to ensure a rogue employer will no longer be able to benefit in the courts from a situation in which he or she has exploited an undocumented worker is welcome. Enabling undocumented migrant workers to take a civil action for compensation, notwithstanding the illegality of their contract, is an important deterrent and will service society and the economy well.

It would be helpful if the Minister set out why the legislation limits the compensation to be paid to the minimum wage or rates of pay fixed under or pursuant to any enactment. Let us suppose the employer in such a case has paid his or her waiting staff above the minimum wage, for example, €10 an hour. Why legislate for the payment of compensation based on a lesser amount? While the Bill provides for a minimum level of compensation, this is already provided for as employers cannot pay below the minimum wage. If an employer is found not only to have conned a migrant employee into thinking his or her employment status was regularised but also to have paid less than the minimum wage, surely the employer has fallen foul of two legislative requirements.

While I accept that this compensation will not be treated as reckonable payment within the meaning of social welfare legislation and entitlements, this section highlights a particular concern. If an individual is not allowed to work, and on the basis that a civil action can take some time, we can conclude that he or she would not have the necessary supports to feed his or her family, pay rent and so on while seeking to expose wrongdoing. If this Bill is to act as a real deterrent, it must facilitate those who are brave enough to expose wrongdoing. If it disempowers them from raising their concerns and being able to use the legislation, surely it is not worth the paper it is written on, and we will simply see the practice continue.

While the business representative groups have not yet set out their response to the legislation, the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland has welcomed its provisions. Broadening the eligibility for highly skilled occupations will, the chamber claims, boost companies with a heavy reliance on niche skill sets, including fluency in less common languages. Accelerating recruitment processes by reducing bureaucracy and enabling senior executives to be based in Ireland for the initial stages of a start-up will aid foreign direct investment, FDI. Introducing such flexibility into the system makes sense.

A dual objective of these flexibilities is to strive to arrive at a place where such recruitment requirements could be met from our own graduate pool. Departments do not work together properly when it comes to shared objectives. Our economy and society are becoming more complex, and policymakers need to respond. We do not object to the Government's response to emerging employment needs in areas such as ICT and languages, but we question its ability to ensure that these needs can and will be met by Irish graduates. As a small, open economy, we will never be able to meet exactly the specifications of every possible job that enters the country, but with 388,559 people currently on the live register, the Government and policymakers need to set about matching industry needs with graduates and workers while ensuring that such persons have the necessary skills to fill the majority of those jobs.

This legislation acknowledges that we have skills deficits in some areas. The situation needs to be addressed urgently. It is my strong view that this can be done in part by a deeper integration of senior departmental officials and Ministers in an environment that vigorously pursues shared policy objectives and encourages flexible problem solving. It does not appear that the Government or senior Department officials have radically changed their approach to management since the crisis began. This is a concern. Things change quickly outside this House and the Government. If the Government benches are not sufficiently flexible to meet those needs, they are not fit for purpose.

It is also worth noting that, on publishing this Bill, the Minister claimed that three out of four vacancies in the ICT sector would be filled by graduates from Irish colleges by 2018. In effect, he is indefinitely conceding that 25% of the requisite workers will come from outside the State. Setting aside the Government's penchant for recycled announcements, the Minister's Action Plan for Jobs update is not adequately ambitious to get us to where we need to be. Austerity is slowing down the recovery. It is that simple.

Forfás identified the need to increase ICT skills supply to meet demand. The Minister claps himself on the back for completing a report confirming what Forfás has already told him, with a limited target of increasing ICT graduate supply by 14% over the next four years. He has offered no explanation as to why he has limited his targets or, indeed, the resource allocation necessary to address this shortfall.

A number of provisions in the Bill will improve the existing legislation. This is to be welcomed. Changing the name of the green card permit to the "critical skills employment permit" makes sense, as does providing for families where such permits are awarded. In addition, the legislation provides for the family members of third country researchers, as instructed by Europe. The sectors in question have extremely specialised needs and it makes sense to remove unnecessary obstacles.

Facilitating transfers between branches of a company has been identified as a need by foreign investors, particularly, as noted by the Minister, in the case of start-ups. It is also welcome that the Government has positively responded to the need to acknowledge migrant workers who have fallen out of the permit system for a number of reasons. I commend the efforts of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland in this regard.

Internships have become a contentious area of the employment market. Of course a Fine Gael Minister is going to advocate for work without pay. Many of the electorate voted for the Labour Party in 2011 to soften the hard, extreme edges of Fine Gael, yet Fine Gael and the Labour Party have pursued work-without-pay measures with equal zeal over the past three years. There is far too high an incidence of highly educated young people finding themselves on rolling internships, unable to get permanent positions. The Government is one of the worst offenders. Last year, more than 220 young people were taken on across various Departments, yet none was offered a full-time position. Instead, the Government took on other interns to fill those positions. No matter how the Government tries to spin it, this is displacement of workers and a mechanism by which the Government is attempting to deal with the negative impact of its recruitment moratorium.

Facilitating student internship programme permits is not in itself wrong. Indeed, such programmes are valuable to third level students specialising in certain highly skilled occupations. That said, we need to ensure that interns from Ireland and elsewhere are not being exploited.

Sinn Féin's youth affairs spokesperson, Senator Reilly, recently published an excellent policy document entitled "Youth Matters - Not for Export". I urge the Minister to familiarise himself with it. Languages are cited by FDI companies as an expertise for which they often need to recruit from outside Ireland. Senator Reilly has proposed that the Government establish a public sector internship programme with other EU states, encouraging young people to improve their language skills within the workplace.

As an aside, the document also calls for all labour activation schemes to be income-proofed - this is important - to ensure that the State is not facilitating the growth of at-work poverty levels. When we discuss internship programmes, we must acknowledge that somebody other than the employer is paying for a person who is doing unpaid work - for example, parents. Often, this can only be afforded by wealthier parents. Parents from lower income brackets are unable to fund their children working free for the State or anyone else.

This legislation will be welcomed by advocacy groups, particularly as it relates to employment permits in exceptional circumstances for carers who are medical professionals caring for people with severe medical conditions or when a person has developed a high level of dependence on a migrant worker.

Before concluding, I will speak briefly on a matter that is not addressed in this legislation, yet is relevant to the debate.

As the Minister is aware, there is increasing concern about the working environment and rights of au pairs in this country. Traditionally, au pairs were young people who took part in a cultural or language exchange programme for a limited period of time. However, the Minister is aware that, increasingly, au pairs are being recruited as carers of children, the elderly or people with disabilities, or for domestic work. While protected under existing employment legislation, most au pairs are not aware of the rights afforded them, and most employers are not aware of their responsibilities to them. Approximately 10,000 au pairs are employed in this State each year. That is a sizable group of very vulnerable workers who are increasingly exploited, paid below the minimum wage, and are not receiving basic entitlements. Demand for au pairs has been on the increase as working families are finding it impossible to pay for child care.

While the Code of Practice for Protecting Persons Employed in other People’s Homes was introduced and placed on a statutory footing in 2007, it is not being enforced and does not provide in full for the experience of au pairs. In addition, their work is extending beyond traditional child care into caring for people with disabilities and elderly people. In part, this is again because many families simply cannot afford the costs of institutional or professional privatised care.

We recognise that Government has a number of policy objectives to consider when considering a revision of the employment permit system. However, where anomalies arise in the labour market arising from Government policy, these irregularities cannot go unchallenged or unchecked. The Government is due to sign the International Labour Organization Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers. That provision will enhance protections, and the National Employment Rights Authority will also amend its oversight and enforcement procedures.

Sinn Féin supports the call by the Migrant Rights Centre for an immediate and co-ordinated response by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and the National Employment Rights Authority to ensure that the employment rights of au pair workers are upheld and enforced, with a particular emphasis on recruitment agencies and direct employers. The Minister must work with his Cabinet colleagues also to deal with the reality that families unable to afford child care or the care of elderly or disabled family members are turning to au pairs to fulfil that work.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Tá a lán rudaí maithe sa Bhille seo agus cabhróidh siad le daoine atá ag obair sa gheilleagar ag an mbomaite seo. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire oscailte maidir le leasuithe ar Chéim an Choiste, mar beidh Sinn Féin ag cur leasuithe chun cinn.

I call Deputy Finian McGrath, who I understand is sharing his time with Deputy Mattie McGrath.

I am sharing 15 minutes of my time with my colleague Deputy Mattie McGrath.

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this new legislation, the Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill 2014. I welcome this debate, as exploitation of workers should never be tolerated in any country or humane society. We need to update all legislation and make these Bills relevant to people's daily lives and their particular jobs.

This is a relevant issue, particularly in view of what we have seen in recent days with regard to the rise of the extreme right across the European Union. All of us must be vigilant, as racism and exploitation can never be tolerated. As Members of the Oireachtas we all have a duty to lead on this important issue. We have seen what sectarianism has done in the North, and all of us have a statutory duty to build an inclusive and respectful workplace. This legislation is part of that wider debate, and I will put forward my arguments for that later.

The Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill seeks to update the existing legislation, including permit types, to take account of recent case law. Issues identified include ensuring flexibility within the system and preventing the exploitation of workers who do not have an employment permit. That is at the core of the legislation. We must examine closely the issue of exploitation of workers and staff. Specifically, the legislation updates and expands the types of permit available. It also provides a system of compensation up to the minimum wage level for employees who are working illegally but not paid properly by their employer. That is what is at the heart of this Bill.

It is important also when dealing with this legislation and the broader debate that we get the facts and the information right and examine what is really happening here and in the broader economy. We must face up to the reality that we need highly skilled people to come to this State and assist us in improving our skills. It is important that we state that and not run away from the issue or hide behind other arguments.

The number of permits issued has decreased annually since the peak in 2003, when 47,551 were issued. In 2013, 3,863 permits were issued. The top nationality of people granted permits was India, the figure for which was 1,410, followed by the United States, at 583, the Philippines, at 211, and China, at 208. Google was the top company sponsoring permits, with 137, followed by Tata Consultancy Services and the Health Service Executive, HSE, the figure for which, interestingly, was 94. These are the people we are talking about in the legislation.

There is an economic rationale for this measure, which is important when we are discussing growth in this country. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, constantly talks about jobs and getting directly involved in job creation, but we must have an economic rationale for the employment permits system, because we also learn from that. There is a hugely positive side to employment permits about which we never hear in this House or in the broader media. The first and most significant channel is the labour market. The immigration of highly skilled workers has the potential to substantially improve cost competitiveness and expand GNP more than the increase in population. Second, where there are economies of scale in production, increased employment through migration can boost GNP per head. Third, in addition to their impact on costs, there is potential for immigrants to enhance GNP per head through creativity and expertise. That is the real economic world. There are a variety of other possible influences, including immigration as a source of entrepreneurship and a stimulus to new trade connections. That is something we must develop. We started it with regard to China, but we have to broaden it out to include the Middle East and the Arab countries also. We do not hear that reality mentioned, particularly the economic side. When highly skilled and motivated people come to our country they assist us in upskilling and add to the productivity and commercial activity of this State. We know that from our history. When our families emigrated to America, Australia or England they were very poor, but when they got to those countries they worked very hard, educated their children and had a major impact on the economies of those countries. We can see the fruits of that when we meet our cousins, second cousins and other relations who visit us from different countries.

The negative comments, including the "taking our jobs" comment we hear regularly, should be challenged and dealt with. I have put forward the economic arguments which stand up to any objective analysis. I do not accept much of the negative spin.

There is also an element of racism involved that needs to be challenged. As I stated earlier, this should not be tolerated.

In discussing the employment permits system in Ireland we should focus on the facts rather than the myths. Those who do not require an employment permit include Irish citizens, European Union citizens, EEA citizens and Swiss citizens. Citizens of all other countries require an employment permit, except full-time students, who are limited to 20 hours of work per week per term, or persons who have been granted permission to remain in Ireland exempting them from requiring a permit - namely, spouses or partners of Irish citizens and refugees. There is also a working holiday authorisation, WHA, to allow young people from certain countries to fund an extended holiday in Ireland through temporary work. To avail of this, the young person needs to apply for a WHA from their nearest Irish embassy or consulate or relevant organisation. This system is regulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as opposed to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. There are four types of permit, including work permits, green cards, spouse or dependant work permits, and intra-company transfer permits.

In regard to skilled workers, there is regular commentary regarding the need for ICT professionals, health-associated professionals, professional engineers and technologists, researchers and natural scientists and business and financial professionals and associate professionals in our modern society. It is important in terms of the identified deficit of these skills in Ireland that such professionals are utilised in upskilling our own people. We need to get our act together in this regard. The educational system also needs to get its act together and deal with the deficit. We must ensure that our people are constantly learning and upskilling.

The spouse or dependant employment permit allows family members of green card work permit holders to also work in Ireland, which I welcome. This type of permit is available to spouses, recognised partners and eligible dependant children. It does not attract the same requirements as a work permit or green card in that a spouse or dependant can apply for a job in any sector, work for a minimum of ten hours per week and earn less than €30,000 per annum. The person is, however, expected to remain with one employer for the first year. Also, there is no application fee in respect of this permit. Where a person is married to an Irish or EU citizen, he or she does not apply for a spouse or dependant employment permit; rather, he or she applies in the first instance to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, for residency permission, which usually allows for employment.

It is important to refer to the strong economic arguments for work permits. The view that mass immigration is undesirable and is more a cost than a benefit is totally wrong. Immigration should be viewed as an opportunity to be embraced rather than a cost to be minimised. Non-Irish workers have played an important role in the evolution of the Irish economy and continue to make essential contributions to the labour market, particularly in filling skilled vacancies. Our liberal policy towards immigration in Ireland during the boom years primarily reflected economic necessity. There is significant potential for growth in ethnic entrepreneurship, provided the right environment is created and support offered. This is often forgotten. We need to develop ethnic entrepreneurship because it is these people who can assist us in our hour of need. There is little evidence to date to show that immigrants would be more likely than Irish nationals to avail of jobseeker's benefits. These are all issues that need to be highlighted in this debate.

Not all jobs can be filled from domestic sources. The permit system should adequately facilitate recruitment of non-EU workers where necessary. However, we need to also constantly upskill our workforce. The top ten companies sponsoring employment permits include Google Ireland Limited, with 137 permits; Tata Consultancy Services Limited, with 154; the HSE, with 94; IBM Ireland Limited, with 84; Ernst & Young, with 79; Dell Technology & Solutions Limited, with 78; and Intel Ireland Limited, with 69; and various other companies sponsoring 57 or 58 permits. It is important in the context of discussing and updating our work permits system that we seek to protect and develop our domestic labour market. Cheap labour in any market should never be an option. Concerns have been expressed about internships and the exploitation of young people. We have many talented young people in this country, some of whom are unemployed. I have been told on many occasions by young people that they would work for nothing to get into the system. We need to ensure that those at whom this legislation is targeted have sustainable jobs which will result in their being able to contribute to the tax system and, thus, through spending, the development of the wider economy.

The Minister needs to keep his eye on the ball. Upskilling is important. It is the name of the game. Let us hope this Bill will make a major contribution to the overall reforms currently under way in the employment permits area. This Bill codifies and clarifies the law in this area so as to make the system more transparent and the obligations of businesses and other stakeholders clearer. It also makes the system more flexible and responsive to changing economic circumstances so that our employment permits system can respond quickly and allow our economy to benefit from emerging opportunities. I want to see this country develop. This is not only what I want but what needs to happen. Let us ensure that in addressing this issue of employment permits we address the needs of those who come to this country and assist us in developing our economy. We will only emerge from the current crisis by developing our economy and looking to new ideas in terms of job creation. Many of the people about whom we are speaking have the new ideas and skills we require and can teach them to us too. It is important that is acknowledged in this debate.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. It is timely that we are amending and extending the 2003 and 2006 Acts and that the provisions in respect of employment permit schemes are being updated in line with policy and economic development since 2007. There have been many and varied changes since 2007, at which time there had also been many changes which were perhaps not encompassed in legislation. This Bill also provides flexibility to deal with changing labour markets, work patterns and economic development needs, which often require a rapid response. As an employer in a traditional industry, I know that change is happening on a daily basis. I am sure the Minister and his officials are well aware of this. We must ensure we have in place a robust employment permit regime and address the deficiencies identified in previous legislation, thereby allowing employers to benefit from those changes. The market in which we are currently operating is very pressurised. It is also IT-driven, which is a far cry from the situation that pertained in business when I first got involved in 1982. We now live in a vastly different society and a time of next-day or hourly delivery of services. It is hard to keep up with the Googles of the world in terms of technology. This loosening of the permit system to meet needs and challenges in terms of employment is overdue. It will allow employers to enter into contracts. Most contracts now include a completion date, delivery time and so on.

There are punishment and penalty clauses if one does not deliver on time. While it may have been necessary to introduce this, it is very hard on employers. When seeking markets and work contracts, employers need to have flexibility to employ staff with a variety of skills from within and outside the State.

We used to say Ireland is a small place, but the world is now a small place, given the nature of the modern economy and technology and the access we have to various locations by air and sea. If we are to continue recovering in Ireland, it is vital that we be able to adapt to new challenges, everyday needs, changing needs and the fast pace of change.

I welcome most aspects of the Bill but wonder whether it goes far enough in certain areas. According to the explanatory memorandum, Part 3, for instance, amends the Act of 2006 to "Further provide for the Employment Permit system and give a clear legal basis for having different types of employment permits for different purposes, and additional criteria and rules in determining whether to refuse an application for an employment permit or to grant it". This is vital if we are to meet the needs and listen to the cries of the drivers of industry, including manufacturers and the service industry. Quite clearly, we must have different horses for different courses and a more flexible approach to gaining access to the required skills. I refer to the qualifications, education, passion and vision required by the employer. Obviously, we must always have respect for native employees, who are entitled to certain rights according to certain regulations. These rights must be respected, but when certain skill sets are not available among the Irish, we need to have a tailor-made scheme to allow staff to be recruited from abroad and granted permits almost immediately. This would allow employers to fulfil their contracts.

The proposed section 3A sets out the different purposes for which employment permits can be granted, and can be regarded as the Bill’s principles and policies. This is the right approach but I hope the various legislative provisions and regulations are not too cumbersome. As we know, many provisions seem fine until they are put into law. The legislation we are amending is from seven years ago. The change is long overdue. What we are now legislating for could fast become out of date, perhaps in 15 or 18 months. That is the nature of the beast as it evolves. It is very hard for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and its officials to keep pace with needs of those at the coalface. While we engage in consultation and ask for submissions, I honestly believe, without disrespect to any Minister or official in any Department, that we need to engage more ordinarily with the companies, big and small, at the coalface and ask them for their input. They are always very busy and under pressure. Perhaps, heretofore, engagement was with State agencies and the Revenue Commissioners, thus resulting in a them-and-us scenario. That is a pity. We need to change the culture and have the companies as partners with a major input into the amendment of legislation. At any stage, one should be ready to pick up the telephone to support companies and give them information so they will not have to go from one department to the next and so they will not have to spend money they may not be able to afford on legal expertise and consultants to interpret legislation we pass in this House. Everything now seems to be consultant-driven.

Previous speakers have asked whether there is racism in Ireland and whether we are against certain races that may not be Irish or EU citizens. I do not believe so. I believe we had a problem in this country, even during the boom. More than 100,000 people were unemployed during the busiest and craziest hazy days of the boom. We must determine why this was the case. We are slipping in some cases. I am sad to say that there are some families who have not worked in a job for three generations. While it is fine that we have various schemes, etc., we must examine the fundamental issue as to why people are not job-ready. I understand that circumstances have changed from ten or 20 years ago. It is hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear regarding IT skills for older people. People over my age were not brought up in the IT era and must try to grapple with it. Perhaps we should focus more on this area.

We ought to have a fundamental review of our education structure, from kindergarten to third level, in order to learn why we do not have the skill sets that we must import from abroad. I have no problem with bringing in staff. It is great to have outside people. My daughter works with the Kerry Group. People of all nationalities have moved to Ireland with the group and are working very successfully here. They are playing a huge part and a very important role. However, we must be able to produce the skill sets that are needed and meet the challenge. I have heard various industries and Americans in the US embassy saying quite clearly that when American companies announce jobs here, they cannot recruit the staff they want here in Ireland. They have been saying this for nigh-on seven years, or since I came to this House and had an opportunity to meet them in various settings. I am sure the Minister is well aware of this. We must ask ourselves why this is the case.

The status of our universities was second to none. I am not here to knock the universities but am saying we need to re-examine and refocus and ask whether we are training students so they will have the right skills mix. Are we over-training in some areas and consequently unable to change and meet the challenges that arise? I blame the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. Since the inception of the State, they have been doing great work, but we need to change and adapt. The permanent government needs to do so if it is to understand and meet the various challenges. Our universities should and must focus more on listening to companies such as Google and the ICT professionals about whom we are talking. The health sector is recruiting a large number of such people from abroad. We need them in the area of finance also. Our education sector, therefore, is lagging behind and slacking.

Many of our forefathers and families went all over the world and were accepted. I acknowledge that they worked hard with basic skills - there is no substitute for hard work. They engaged in huge projects all over the world and integrated into their respective communities. Perhaps they were not as welcome as they should have been at the time, but we are now in a different era. We must be ready for the challenge.

I had the very pleasant experience recently of having an intern from an African country. It was a pleasure to have her in the Houses with me for nearly eight months. She interacted very well. She was brought here through Crosscare along with a number of her colleagues. I only hope I was able to give her the benefit of some of my experience of the political system here. Certainly, I gained valuable experience from having her in my office for the period in question. I learned an awful lot, including about racism and the perception of racism. I asked her on the first day how I should introduce her. She said I should introduce her as a black woman. She said we had a problem with that, but that she and her colleagues did not have a problem with being called black.

Honestly, I was told this. Perhaps those in the media and those of us in the House are too shy and too concerned about racism. While racism cannot be tolerated in any shape or form, maybe we are too afraid to have people of all colours of skin working and involved here. Many of them are up and at it, and I dealt with many in the last couple of weeks during the election, including in two companies which I dealt with regarding postering and sign-writing in Tipperary. In both companies, which are local Clare-based companies, the main staff are from countries other than Ireland. One could not meet finer people to work with; they met their deadlines and were hugely professional. I suppose we all need to change and to refocus.

With regard to the question of agencies, I want to refer to the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, which was dealing with employment regulation. As I have said for years, since the start of the recession, NERA is too focused on employment rights. Its name should be changed, along with its focus, and it should become an employment support agency. It should go out and help employers, not come in flashing the card all the time. It should be sent out to businesses which are struggling and which want to be listened to. It should be used as an agency that deals with the feelings, depressions and challenges that employers face, and bring this information back to the Department, instead of being a national employment rights body. While the employment rights side is necessary and legislation must be observed, I believe that either NERA should be disbanded or its role should be changed to that of a national employer support agency, as well as having the remit of looking after employment rights. I am certainly not saying employers should abuse any employee, but the focus must be changed. NERA was over-staffed and over-zealous in the good times. Its staff are still there and it still has regional offices all over the country because we got carried away with ourselves. We need to refocus NERA and tell it how to assist business people. We must assist employers all the time rather than having the Revenue Commissioners and everybody else sending them letters and demands. Small, indigenous employers will be the backbone of our recovery. If we do not have them, we will kill the entrepreneurial spirit, which we have killed to a large extent through NERA and the plethora of health and safety agencies. I agree with all of that, but it has gone over the top. Some people in these agencies have never created a job and would not know how to run a business. More of these officials should come from the business sector, where they have walked the walk and talked the talk, as they will be able to give support to companies.

I welcome many aspects of the Bill, which is long overdue. This area has to be loosened and we have to be more effective. Above all, whether workers come from another country or from Ireland, work has to be worthwhile, with a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. It cannot cost people to go into employment, because that does not make sense. There are expenses around being at work. Work must be profitable and people must have a reasonable reward for a fair day's work, no matter what country they come from.

Deputies Seán Kyne and Joe O'Reilly are sharing time.

As we look at the election results from across Europe, we can see the success of many anti-immigration parties. Whether or not this is born of frustration with economic conditions, which often fuels anti-immigrant attitudes and sentiments, it is unfortunate. In this country there is often a negative and unrealistic perception of immigration, which is ironic considering the number of Irish people who themselves live abroad.

The reality is that work permits are only given in this country where jobs have previously been advertised without suitably qualified individuals being found, and clear guidelines are laid down for this whole area. The restrictions are also based on the sectors in which permits may be granted and the skills shortages in certain areas. In 2013, 3,868 permits were issued, and the top nationalities were as follows: 1,400 to India; 583 to the United States; and 211 to the Philippines. Obviously, the US and India are no surprise, because many multinationals have operations both in this country and in India or the United States, and companies such as Google and organisations such as the HSE have many requirements for work permits based on specific skills shortages.

The spirit of the European Union is based on the free movement of goods, capital, services and people. Member states had the ability to temporarily restrict the movement of labour following enlargement. For example, despite the accession in 2007 of Romania and Bulgaria, it was 2014 before full rights to work in this State were given. Despite this, on the recent canvas, someone argued to me that this was not the case and that full rights had been given from day one. Obviously this was wrong, but, again, perceptions and reality are quite different.

The number of people in the direct provision asylum system in this country have, thankfully, decreased since the highs of the so-called Celtic tiger years prior to the citizenship referendum. Great work was being done by the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, in regard to reducing numbers, but there is still a need for more to be done in terms of processing applications more quickly and providing definite answers on residency applications. The citizenship ceremonies were another welcome change made by the then Minister in terms of recognition of what should be the pride and enthusiasm of recipients about gaining Irish citizenship.

In my own constituency of Galway West, thankfully, we have many multinational companies which provide badly needed employment and are great employers. A number of managers have contacted me in recent years regarding the importance of flexibility within the work permits system, given the delays and frustrations in terms of being able to hire individuals with the necessary skills where there is an evident skills shortage. One such manager stated there had been consideration of moving his whole company division to the Czech Republic, such were the problems in gaining work permits. Therefore, I very much welcome the initiative to provide intra-company transfer employment permits and also the spouse, civil partner and dependant employment permit to enable family members of holders of critical skills to have employment permits. It is a very important section of the Bill and one I very much welcome.

The importance of this legislation in protecting vulnerable people is highlighted by the 2012 High Court case in which an employee was not being paid the minimum wage and had his rights abused. He took the case, with the result that the judges of the High Court brought the matter to the attention of the Minister to ask that this legislation be put in place in order to change the system. It also provides for updates on the provisions for employment permits in line with the policy on economic development since 2007, based on the specific jobs and skills shortages. It provides for a system of compensation up to a minimum wage level for employees who were working illegally but who were not paid by their employers. It also addresses skills shortages, specifically within the ICT sector. It is a very important and necessary Bill, which I certainly welcome.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill is a long-overdue update of the existing Employment Permits Act 2006, which at that time was a reforming Bill. In 2012, the Amjad Hussein v. the Labour Court and Mohammad Younis case unearthed a serious discrepancy in our work permit laws. There was damning evidence of serious exploitation taking place, with Mr. Younis reportedly working seven-day weeks with no holidays and a wage that was well below the minimum and legal levels. However, while Mr. Younis was successful in his compensation claim in theory, because he was not a legally permitted employee, he was unable to sue for compensation. Given the loopholes that exist, there is the potential for exploitation while a person is awaiting a permit.

That is what the Bill sets out to deal with. Mr. Justice Hogan, who spotted the anomaly, referred the legislation back to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government made a commitment to draft an amendment to the existing permits legislation. I am happy to see this legislation, which is long overdue and very much welcome, before the House today.

Apart from legislation, it was also becoming clear that we needed rules which were more flexible and able to move with the ever-changing trends in the labour market. As a result of the over-reliance on the construction industry in the past decade, we ended up with a severe skills gap in various sectors of our labour market, most notably the ICT sector. The ICT action plan, which was published this year, was a collaboration between the Departments of Education and Skills and Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation. This plan identified that any future job creation strategy in this country needed to have a strong ICT enterprise base at its core. We are no longer competing in a European market. Ireland is now competing on a global scale and our policies need to reflect that. The action plan predicts that by 2015 we will see a shortage of up 864,000 ICT professionals across Europe, which is a staggering figure. In Ireland, it is predicted that we will see an average increase in demand for high-level ICT skills of around 5% out to 2018. Following on from that, the employment of ICT professionals in Ireland is predicted to rise to just over 91,000, and four out of five vacancies in the ICT sector will be filled by Irish graduates. Meeting the continuing strong domestic demand for ICT professional skills will require an increase in the number of high-quality computing and electronic or electrical engineering graduates.

At the same time, we need to realise that it takes time to nurture these graduates and that in order to remain competitive, we need to enhance the skills pool here through attracting appropriately skilled professionals from across Europe and beyond. I know that this year the Government published its plan to fill 44,500 jobs for ICT professionals by 2018. Part of that figure will be reached through the decision to issue up to 2,000 work permits per year to ICT professionals. This represents a strategic use of work permits and is targeted at continuing inward investment - the maintenance of existing inward investment and attracting further inward investment. I commend the Minister and his Department on the comprehensive work it is doing in this regard. They are unquestionably successful in this sphere.

I was happy to learn that there will be an increased focus on awarding permits to recent Irish emigrant families and EEA nationals as a result of this legislation. Since this Government took office, job creation has been the cornerstone of almost every action we have taken. It has been slightly lost in the very recent narrative over the past few weeks that all of our strategies around the financial adjustments and budgetary constraints were geared at making us competitive so that our people could work again and we could halt emigration. They are not part of some savage plan, as they have been portrayed by some cynical and careless commentators who do not bother to analyse the matter properly. What we had to do by way of very difficult measures and reductions in income, which we did not enjoy doing, was predicated on the need to create jobs and the conditions for job creation. That has been lost in the very recent narrative. Regardless of whether it is lost or not, we are committed to that project and it is the kernel of everything we do. It is only abstract economics until it comes to the question of people working. That is what it is about. It is about making sure that our people would have the dignity of work and that their families would have all the benefits of work in terms of quality of life and everything that goes with it. We are not about anything else. All of the Government's strategy is predicated upon building a society where people work and where there is equality of opportunity.

This legislation is another clear signal that we are making strides in this regard. Today, we had the announcement that 380 jobs will be created at Ericsson and SAP, benefiting the counties of Athlone, Dublin and Galway. The CSO also released figures that showed there was an annual increase in employment of 2.3%, or 42,700 jobs, in first quarter of 2014, bringing total employment in the country to 1,888,200. This represents 800 jobs per week. I commend the Minister and his Department on this wonderful achievement, given the background to it and given where we were. That is what we are about. We are about putting people into work. That is what this legislation is about as well. Not only does it give an opportunity to people whose skills are indispensable to us; it also ensures that, through their presence, inward investment will be maintained.

I will briefly touch on Part 2 of the Bill, which removes the current loophole that gives little or no protection to exploited employees who are working in this country without a permit but who have taken every step possible to ensure compliance. I have already referred to the Hussein v. Younis case, which was the initial stimulus for this legislation, but, sadly, this case is not an isolated one. The Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland has previously stated that our current work permit system makes it easy for employers to benefit by exploiting their migrant employees and denying them their basic rights. This is due to the fact that migrant workers with a valid work permit must stay with their employer for at least a year before they can change employment and the fact that in order to change they must reapply for a new permit, with the associated high cost. There are also criticisms that the time it takes for a new permit to be processed is inordinately long - sometimes as long as three months, which is an unacceptable length of time to wait. The applicant is not allowed to work while he or she is waiting and, in theory, has no income. What this tends to do is to encourage applicants to seek work without a permit, thus exposing them to other risks. The new legislation will ensure that there is a 58% reduction in the processing time for employment permits and significant improvements in the appeals process, which is a welcome move.

Under section 4, which provides for the insertion of section 2B into the Employment Permits Act 2003, in cases where exploitation exists, the Minister of the day may institute civil proceedings to recoup any monies owing for services rendered. Having the machinery of the State on the side of workers is very empowering and a progressive element of the legislation. This will not only ensure that anybody who enters this State to work will not have their rights exploited in any way, but will also act as a deterrent to further exploitation. All this is in addition to potential criminal prosecution which is already in existence. Employers have a responsibility to all their employees, be they Irish citizens or non-nationals. It is important that there are no doubts about this. One of the things that this legislation seeks to achieve is to make our work permit law more transparent, allowing for no lack of clarity.

Part 3 of the Bill gives us a clearer and more defined legal basis for the different types of permit that will be in operation, and the rules and regulations around how they are granted will also be copper-fastened. It also clearly lists the nine types of permit and the conditions that they can be granted under. The critical skills permit, which replaces the old green card system, will be a key contributor to our overall job creation strategy, ensuring that we as a country remain competitive in attracting inward investment.

As Deputy Kyne said, permits are not thrown around like confetti at a wedding; they are used strategically and with due discretion. The criteria are built in to address economic need, inward investment and skills shortages.

Historically, there was always confusion around the term "green card", as links were made to the US green card application system, which achieves a different objective from our version. This newly named permit will be an integral part of the overall objective to drive our economy forward by linking the jobs we create to the skills that are needed. The spouse or dependant employment permit will tally well with the new critical skills permit and will ensure that highly skilled permit holders who have a spouse, partner or dependant will look on Ireland as an attractive place to work, given that they will be able to relocate with their families. That is a fundamental right for the family. This can only further increase our competitiveness on the global market.

Section 11 ensures that the 50:50 market rule and the labour market needs test applies to all employers who are seeking to hire non-nationals as employees. The balance must be maintained between domestic workers and work permit holders, irrespective of the skills issue. The legislation guarantees that 50% of their workforce must come from within the EEA before companies seek to apply for permits for any future employees. It also provides for a special exemption in specific cases for foreign start-up companies, especially those that arise as a result of FDI. If a company from India or Asia sets up and brings a set of skilled workers, that could be accommodated. Such flexibility is needed to expand the workforce. If this was not provided for, it would lessen our attractiveness and, therefore, I welcome the exemption.

Section 17 states that the Department will refuse to grant a permit to an employer if he or she is not offering employees at least the national minimum wage and normal overtime remuneration. We do not want another Hussein v. Younis case. That is what the legislation is predicated on. It is fundamentally important that we, as a civilised republic and democracy, value and cherish people and ensure non-exploitation. That is a core belief of our society, and even in the worst of times we have not lost that. It is inherent in the legislation, and that is achieved for people during the process of applying for a permit, when they hold a permit and during the renewal process.

This is progressive legislation that is part of the feverish efforts of the Minister and his Department, which have continued apace since the Government took office, to achieve the conditions for job creation, to increase skills sets, to develop a more vibrant economy and to give our young people an opportunity to work here and our emigrants an opportunity to return. I am delighted by the ICT initiatives and I hope our young people will grasp their gigantic potential. They have the ability and flexibility to do that. I believe in a more generalist view of background education. People should not just be educated for one sector. While ICT skills are critical, people need to have general all-round skills as they will need to move a few times in their careers.

I welcome this progressive, reforming legislation. It will be tested in the furnace of reality in the coming months and years.

I welcome the Bill, which has been talked about for a long time. It leads on from legislation introduced by the former Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to provide for a visa link-up with the UK. It means people coming into the UK from China and so on can travel on to Ireland freely because of the visa arrangements. This legislation is another step along the way. It also reflects positively on our employment prospects that legislation has to be brought forward to fast-track green cards and work permits in sectors of our economy for which we do not have sufficient workers within the State. Senator Clune has mentioned this a few times. I welcome the fact that the Minister listened to us on the backbenches when we brought forward ideas. This proposal was made by Senator Clune.

Opposition Members might ask why we are bringing this in and why we are not looking after our own citizens. FDI companies and some of their feeder companies have employment opportunities but they cannot recruit suitable Irish candidates. I hope the Minister will strengthen the regulations. If a job is taken up by someone who needs a green card, I am concerned to ensure the job is well advertised in order that the opportunity is available for our own suitably qualified citizens. It should also be advertised in a way that ensures people must be eligible for it rather than companies laying down criteria they know people here cannot meet, which means they have to go elsewhere.

The speed at which work permits and green cards are processed has improved. This morning, the backlog dated to 6 May and, therefore, if someone applied on 6 May, he or she will receive the work permit shortly, which is welcome. It is quicker to secure a green card than to get a response from Irish Water. Perhaps the departmental staff can be transferred to Irish Water.

The Bill also deals with the Hussein judgment. During the Celtic tiger era, almost 40,000 green cards and work permits were granted annually and many of them were given to people in low-wage jobs, who were exploited. The move to accommodate the judgment is positive. I am supportive of the Bill, which is a necessary stop forward.

I am delighted to welcome the Bill. The Minister and I have had a few exchanges of views in this regard over the past number of years. Many immigrants have come to the country, just as many Irish people have left and travelled abroad.

We would all like to see that those who visit us, be it for work, immigration or to seek asylum, are treated in the way we would wish to be treated if we went elsewhere. Irish people have gone to all corners of the world over the years, some out of necessity, some out of a sense of adventure, some because it was convenient to do so and some because they had particular skills that were required in other jurisdictions. They made a serious contribution to their adopted economies. Similarly, many people have come to this island, initially on the basis of work permits. However, they have found themselves in a type of no-man's-land because on the transition from one employer to another they understood there was an ongoing entitlement to a work permit, which was not exactly the case, whether that was because of a difficulty with language or a difficulty with an employer. In many cases, when a person with a legitimately awarded work permit moved to a subsequent employer, and perhaps had to move for a variety of reasons, and then moved onto a third employer, they found that when the work permit expired they had no continuity. This has affected many people, particularly from Latin America, in the meat industry and in the catering industry. A significant number of people now have no work permit, have no entitlement to one and have been illegally employed for some time. I hope this Bill proposes to address that issue. Otherwise, it would be very unfair for people who have made a contribution to our economy, paid their taxes and PRSI, worked in this economy for up to ten years and fulfilled every other obligation except compliance with the immigration laws. The Bill proposes to deal with that issue, and rightly so. I hope it deals with every aspect of it and encompasses the issues for people who are in that type of situation and were initially employed legitimately.

I have dealt with cases, and I am sure other Members have dealt with such cases, where people initially came to this jurisdiction on foot of a work permit and have been employed for up to ten years. They have never been unemployed and have never applied for unemployment assistance. Despite being continuously employed they have found themselves without entitlements on the grounds of a work permit. I strongly urge that all aspects of such situations be fully examined with a view to meeting their accommodation needs.

Another situation that has come to my attention on more than one occasion is one in which a person arrives into this country on a student visa and works part-time for the required number of hours within the law. Such people may then remain in the country illegally. Generally, their employers want to keep them on. I have never encountered an employer who did not wish to keep the person on, and it is only because they are good employees that an effort is made by the employer to obtain a work permit for them and keep them in the jurisdiction. Bear in mind also that in many of these cases the people now have families. It is a ten- or 12-year period in some cases, and they have families, they have entered into relationships and they have commitments within the State. It would be unfair to discriminate against them on the basis that they had, for whatever reason, failed to fulfil their obligations in respect of entitlement to a work permit. This is not catered for in the Bill but I believe it should be considered.

People have also been working in the catering sector, which I mentioned earlier. I acknowledge that there is a danger of exploitation in this area. People might have been working legitimately for many years in the same or similar positions but ultimately find themselves with no entitlement in respect of permission to remain in the State. I believe that the contribution they have made over a number of years must be taken into account in a positive way. They made a major contribution to the many sectors in which they were employed. That is without referring to the ethnic restaurant business, in which many people are also employed.

Another area where non-EU nationals have made a major contribution is the health sector. There have been countless cases of people coming from India and the Philippines, often with their families, and taking up employment in our health services - in fact, in some of the cases I have dealt with they were employed by the HSE - but it was deemed that they were not entitled to remain in the country because they did not have appropriate authorisation in respect of a work permit. Fortunately, the then Minister managed to resolve some of those cases, but a type of no-man's land has developed over the years for a number of people who have made a major contribution to our economy and society and who have made commitments and entered into contractual relationships and so forth. I believe they must be catered for in a sympathetic way with a view to granting them status or granting them an amnesty and a period within which they can make an application. In allowing them to make an application, it should not be under a condition with which they cannot comply. We all know about situations that people might be offered, but in order to qualify under some of the conditions one would have to be an escapologist. It should not be that rigid.

Incidentally, there are a number of cases in which people have been self-employed. It is extraordinary. The people have been in this country for at least ten years, self-employed and never out of work. They kept the family and family home going over all that time. Initially they came here on a work permit that expired and was never renewed. As a result they are still here and they are still making their contribution. I accept that this area is a little vague because it is a possible area of exploitation of foreign nationals. There is a tendency in some cases to pay less than the norm. I have encountered numerous employers who have the height of respect for the people they have employed, not knowing, because they inherited them, that they were not here legally. They did everything possible to ensure they could remain in their employment. Not only do they have the height of respect for the employee, but the employee also has the height of respect for them. It is great to see that.

The people of this nation have sought employment and their fortune all over the globe. In some places they were welcome, in some they were not. Sometimes they were branded and in some cases they were ostracised. We did not like that at the time. I remember from when I was a great deal younger the types of slogan that used to apply, even in respect of various vacancies advertised in the island next door. We did not like it and we were right to object to it. Thankfully, those days are gone. However, as time has passed we find we are in a position in which we can welcome people to our island. In the great majority of cases we extend a warm welcome to people who come to our shores and try to help them. Many of the indigenous population of this country have gone out of their way to facilitate and assist in every possible way those who they think require help, because they remember our situation. Many have been immigrants themselves and experienced at first hand the kinds of things that can happen.

I do not wish to delay proceedings. The legislation can be progressive and I hope it will be. Its interpretation is all-important. That is why I am particularly anxious to follow up and see how the regulations and directives in respect of its implementation will affect the immigrant population in Ireland. We can do a great service to those who have been disadvantaged or find themselves in disadvantageous positions by virtue of residency status. We should be big enough to do so. We should also encourage those countries in which Irish immigrants live. I will not go into the obvious one but note that there are Irish people who have been abroad for up to 20 years in some jurisdictions who have no rights or residency status. That is something we should try to address in every way possible. While we recognise that each country is entitled to run its affairs as it sees fit, we have gone abroad in the knowledge that we have nearly always been welcome and had a contribution to make. We have made that contribution all over the globe. In view of that, we must encourage those in other jurisdictions who are in a position to do so to respond positively.

I hope the legislation is of benefit to the categories of people we have referred to. I have spoken about the meat processing sector, some of the workers in which have extended entitlements in terms of residency while others do not. Some find themselves in a twilight zone and have been forced to return to their own countries, which is a bit sad.

My last point concerns families. Many immigrants to our shores have children who have been born and reared here. The children in some cases are ten or 12 and speak with Irish accents, of course. They have known no other life. While their parents have been providing for them, they are too young to understand the vagaries of the system. It would be a terrible tragedy if we were to ignore the possibility of regularising their status in such a way as to allow them to continue to make a contribution to this economy and jurisdiction. They have shown their ability and willingness to do so.

I thank the Deputies who contributed, including the Acting Chairman, Deputy Robert Troy. This is an important Bill. There were a number of anomalies in the legislation as it prevailed in 2006 and it is timely to deal with them. The general tone of the debate has been very positive. People recognise that we are competing in a very global environment. Companies who come to locate here as well as Irish companies seeking to succeed globally need a diverse selection of people. It is not a question of just having one group; diversity is required. One of Ireland's strengths in recent times has been its diverse labour pool. We can find people who are conversant in languages and who have technical expertise. We have been able to form teams of people, making Ireland a hub in important and dynamic sectors, including, as I mentioned earlier, data analytics and big data. That will be a driving force, and one needs a mixture of talent from home and abroad to create the necessary environment.

We must develop legislation which deals effectively with the needs of the economy. Equally, we must recognise that we have very high unemployment and outward migration. Clearly, any system of offering opportunities to work in Ireland must be conscious that there are many people with skills who must get a fair crack of the whip. We have dealt with that fairly by creating the three separate categories. There are sectors which have been entirely excluded and for which we will not give permits. Deputy Tóibín, who is not here at the moment, raised his concern in the context of au pairs and domestic workers. We do not give permits for domestic workers and there will be other categories where we know positions can be easily filled by Irish or EU nationals. Then there will be the high-skills areas where, clearly, there is a skills shortage. Those areas have been categorised not by an individual Minister but according to hard analysis to determine where we have genuine skills shortages and a need to amplify the skills available at home.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Troy, raised the issue of whether we should have greater ambition and asked whether our educational institutions have been too slow to respond. To be fair, ICT is an area in which the institutions of higher education have stepped up to the plate. They have come under increasing pressure not only from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, and me, but also from the industrial sector. One of the things that has been remarkable about the coalition behind the ICT plan has been the huge involvement across the spectrum from representative bodies, individual companies, higher education institutions and various associations driving software development. We have had a useful collaboration. It is a model for other sectors as we seek to build on strengths and training. We now have the emergence of SOLAS as a new training body. The model which has been successful in the ICT area is one we should develop, whereby industry becomes more involved in taking responsibility for the supply chain of skill. The two companies in respect of which we announced expansions today - Ericsson and SAP - support specific degree courses in the universities and take in up to 70 interns from colleges every year as part of that. We must see that level of engagement from other sectors which have the ambition to grow to ensure that higher education institutions respond. As the Deputy said, they can be a bit tardy at times or at least be seen to be so by employers. If we can get that level of engagement, it can be a win-win situation for both sides.

Deputy Troy also raised the issue of an employee's right to move from one employer to another. The provisions in the Bill reflect the expectation that an employee will spend at least one year with the employer that recruits him or her. It strikes a reasonable balance. Clearly, it is a reasonable period where an employer invests in training and arranging the permit to bring the employee in. We are not trying to create a situation of indentured labour. Where a person loses a job, we are providing for a period of six months during which he or she can find other employment. That also seeks to strike a balance.

Deputy Lawlor has left, but I wish to recognise the role of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, of which he is a member. It put a great deal of work into the Bill. Senator Clune was the rapporteur. The approach advocated by the committee is, largely, the one we have adopted to make the system more friendly while recognising the need to focus, in an environment in which many people are out of work, on areas in which skills are genuinely scarce.

Deputy Tóibín raised the Younis case and compensation and asked whether sticking to the minimum wage was being too mean in failing to provide sufficient opportunity for a person to enforce his or her rights.

The difficulty is that where a person has not been operating on a contract or where there has been an illegal contract, the national minimum wage is the fallback position. That was the thinking behind the selection of the national minimum wage.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín raised the concern that there was not enough engagement with industry in meeting challenges at political and official level. To be fair, this is a case in which such criticism cannot be levelled. The Department has worked closely with industry and is responding to industry demands that we need a more user-friendly system for permits in areas of high growth opportunity. A number of prominent employers such as Sean O'Sullivan have publicly advocated the need for change. We sat down with those people and have been open with them in seeking to redesign the process. I agree that we need more open engagement, which is always desirable, but criticising this development on those grounds is unfair. My Department and others have responded openly to the challenges in the area. A feature of the Action Plan for Jobs has been based on much closer engagement between policymakers and officials and industry in its various forms. We have tried to open up the doors. We have regular consultation with our industry partners and we are trying to get closer to our clients. It is right that Deputy Peadar Tóibín advocates the idea, but it is not fair to criticise us as failing. We can do better and it is our ambition to continually do better.

Deputy Bernard Durkan raised the issue of how far to go in allowing people to use the retrospective permit process. The bedrock is that the person must have entered the country legally in the first place. For one reason or another, people may have fallen out of the system by having been made redundant, but this is the line we observe. Allowing people who do not come in legally to avail of a system to become legal may undermine the whole process. We must strike the right balance.

Many people have spoken about the need for skills in growing sectors, and I am pleased to say the Department has responded and cut the waiting times for decisions on permits dramatically. It has been reduced from 36 days to 15 days over the past 18 months. We are responding to the pressure. It is significant that there is a major increase in the proportion of permits issued to those with ICT skills. This is an area the committee recognised as one we had to respond to. We are creating a user-friendly process and we hope to move to a situation where we can make it more user-friendly and efficient for companies promoted by the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. That is the right way to approach it because Enterprise Ireland and the IDA deal with companies competing in the global environment. That is their mandate and we must recognise that where companies are getting support from IDA and Enterprise Ireland we must be supportive of their development.

I thank those who participated in the debate and I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage, when we can debate the issues in greater detail. I thank the officials who worked on the Bill over the past 18 months in developing a response. It is a major challenge and it is important to get it right.

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share