Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2022

Vol. 1027 No. 5

Employment Permits Bill 2022: Second Stage

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

I am delighted to bring this Bill before the House today. It has been a long road to get it here and there has been much work involved with the committee, colleagues and with public consultation too. As Deputies are aware, the past year has seen a surge in applications for employment permits. That has put much more pressure on the system and shown the need to have legislation to modernise the system. My Department has deployed massive resources to ensuring that permit applications can be processed as efficiently as possible. A range of measures have been introduced. These include the removal of multiple doctor applications from the system. That was done in conjunction with the Department of Health and has been quite useful. These measures have enabled us to improve response times and drive down the backlog. We have also introduced measures which reduce the administrative burden on permit holders and their employers. But we also need to consolidate, modernise and reform the legislation governing employment permits to further improve efficiency and the customer experience. Alongside that, we have probably quadrupled the number of people working in this sector in the Department. Kevin Daly, Sandra O'Reilly and the team are here. They have been concentrating on our response over the past couple of months to bring the waiting list down and to reduce the time it takes to process permits down to three or four weeks, and less in many cases. There has been great focus on this and we believe this legislation will help strengthen the work they have been doing to improve the system over the past year so that it is responsive to everyone's needs. I thank the members of committee for their co-operation on this Bill at pre-legislative scrutiny.

This Bill is part of our response to the Department’s review of economic migration policy undertaken in 2018. It is also vital to help deal with the recent increase in demand for employment permits by businesses seeking to secure suitably skilled people for their operations. The review of the economic migration policy concluded that while the employment permit system provides a robust framework to supplement skills and labour needs in the State, the current legislation imposes considerable inflexibility in its operation.

The review recommended that new legislation be initiated to increase the responsiveness of the system, to modernise it and to ensure that it can respond to rapid changes in the labour market. This Bill incorporates the recommendations of the review. It takes into account inputs to the public consultation on the general scheme, such as support for the seasonal employment permit, while retaining the core focus of a vacancy-led employment system centred on delivering the labour needs of the State. The Employment Permits Bill 2022 will consolidate the existing employment permits Acts, namely the Employment Permits Act 2003, the Employment Permits Act 2006 and the Employment Permits (Amendment) Act 2014. This will bring clarity and consistency to the legislative framework in this area.

I again thank the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for its consideration of the general scheme and for its pre-legislative scrutiny report published in November 2021. The legislation I am presenting takes account of concerns raised by the joint committee. The proposal for a special circumstances employment permit has been removed and the option has been added for a new condition to the grant of permits which would develop talent in Ireland.

While I recognise the concerns raised by the joint committee regarding the seasonal employment permit, I recall that the 2018 review identified a clear demand for a time-limited permission for roles of a seasonal nature. Ireland is an outlier internationally in not offering such a permit. The case for the inclusion of a seasonal employment permit was further confirmed by the level of support for the proposal during the public consultation on the general scheme and in subsequent engagement with stakeholders. I do, though, recognise the concerns expressed by the joint committee and we can deal with those together on Committee Stage. The detail will be elaborated on then and the members of the joint committee can provide input into the design of the permit. The proposals I will bring forward on Committee Stage arise from a detailed consideration of the challenges associated with this permit and of international best practice, as well as a recognition of the increased vulnerability of this cohort of migrant workers. I hope we will be able to work together on that Stage, be able to get agreement and reassure the members of the joint committee regarding their concerns.

The Employment Permits Bill 2022 was originally listed for inclusion in the spring 2022 legislative programme. By that time, however, the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions had brought new challenges in the form of a significant increase in demands on the system and consequent backlogs. The Department has worked simultaneously on reducing the backlogs and finalising this Bill. In so doing, it has been able to review and improve proposals in the new legislation with the objective of avoiding future backlogs. As a result of this extra work, the new Bill provides a streamlined and flexible framework to mitigate the possibility of future backlogs arising. Government approval for publication of the legislation was granted in July and, following minor technical amendments over the summer, it was published on 4 October last. Having provided the background and purpose of the Bill, I will now outline its main provisions.

The Bill contains 71 sections. These are divided into seven parts and two schedules. Part 1 contains preliminary matters common to legislation: citation and commencement; interpretation; regulations; and repeals and revocations. The Bill includes a definition of "employer" based on the existence of a contract and in so doing allows wages to be paid by an entity other than the employer. Where an agency is the employer but the foreign national is carrying out work for the client of that agency, it is now possible for the client of the agency to pay the wages while the agency itself remains the employer. This will make the system easier to navigate for agencies and simplify processing such applications, as well as the monitoring of permits thereafter. This section also includes a definition of "subcontractors" which allows these to avail of the contract for service employment permit in the same manner as a standard contractor.

Part 2 relates to the employment in the State of foreign nationals and contains sections 7 to 39, inclusive, subdivided into eight chapters. Section 7 sets out the requirement that a foreign national working in the State do so subject to a valid employment permit. Section 8 sets out the cohorts who do not require a permit.

Section 9 sets out the types of permit available under the scheme and broadly replicates those established in the existing Acts. The list now includes the new seasonal employment permit. The special circumstances permit I mentioned earlier, which appeared in the general scheme, will not be pursued following concerns expressed by the joint committee. The challenge this proposal was intended to address, namely permits for niche skills, can be addressed in conjunction with our development agencies, such as Enterprise Ireland. Another recommendation of the joint committee, the dependant-partner-spouse employment permit will now be called the dependant employment permit and will only apply to dependants of critical skills employment permit holders. Spouses and partners are now subject to a separate permission process under the auspices of the Department of Justice.

Section 10 establishes the rules for making an application, including which parties may make the application and any restrictions on who may apply, as well as inclusion of a fee, if any. The information to be provided in an application is detailed at section 11. Section 12 provides clarity on who may apply for a dependant permit. Section 13 provides powers to the Minister to amend certain errors in an application to avoid rejecting or refusing an application which might otherwise be granted, subject to regulations.

Sections 14 and 15 re-establish, from the existing Acts, the possibility of recommendation letters being sent by enterprise agencies to support applications and also the possibility for the Minister to consult experts in considering an application for a sports and cultural employment permit.

Section 16 establishes the issues to which the Minister shall give regard in considering an application. The Minister may take steps to establish the accuracy or authenticity of the information provided. Importantly, the Minister may return incomplete applications without further consideration with a written notification to the applicant along with a portion of the fee to be prescribed and any documentation received. The Minister may return the fee to the person that paid the fee originally or to a nominated person. The Minister may give priority to the consideration of applications for certain employment permit types as he or she considers appropriate in light of the economic context.

Section 17 establishes that the permit is granted to the foreign national directly and for the role specified on the application and that the permit shall be subject to maximum validity periods under regulations. The foreign national must commence the employment within a certain period after the permit is granted. That period will be prescribed in regulations. This is to protect the domestic and European Economic Area, EEA, labour market and ensure that there is no suitable candidate available within those jurisdictions at the time the foreign national starts work.

Under section 18, if the Minister grants an employment permit, he or she is obliged to cancel any existing permit for that foreign national as only one permit may be held at a time. The foreign national and employer shall be notified in writing of the cancellation.

Section 19 sets out the information to be provided on the permit to support the holder in understanding his or her rights. These include the applicability of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the right to apply for a new permit.

Section 20 carries forward the 50-50 rule requiring an employer to hire a workforce consisting of at least 50% of workers from within the EEA or Swiss Confederation. This section is a key tool for protecting the EEA labour market. Under the Bill, this cohort is extended to include citizens of the UK who have a right to live and work in the State under the common travel area. This section also sets out waivers to the rule. Employers benefitting from a waiver for a sole employee will no longer be restricted from further recruitment.

Section 21 also protects the EEA labour market and fulfils our obligations under the EU's community preference principle by establishing that a role must be advertised in Ireland and the EEA initially under the labour market needs test. The various waivers are also set out. Crucially, the form an advertisement must take is now moved to regulations. It is no longer required to be published in hard copy newspapers. The minimum period for which the role must be advertised has also been moved to regulations to allow for increased flexibility.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, set out the conditions for grant of an intra-company transfer permit and contract for service permit, including remuneration factors, and provide for the Minister to amend the permit in line with a transfer of undertakings.

Sections 25 and 26, dealing with refusal grounds, are largely unchanged but a discretionary ground for refusal is added in the case where conditions which may have been attached to the grant of a permit under this Bill have not been respected. I think this is something the committee also flagged.

Section 27 allows the fee to be returned to the person who paid it or to a nominated person.

Under section 28, the stipulations around a review of a refusal decision are largely carried over from the current Acts. However, it will now be possible for an entirely new decision to be made at review stage if new information comes to light. This means the applicant still benefits from a review if that decision is in the negative.

Sections 29 to 32, inclusive, largely re-enact the rules around renewal of an employment permit. The reasons for a refusal to grant and renew are separated out to more clearly identify that the refusals for a renewal are less general than the refusal reasons for the initial grant of the permit.

Sections 33 to 36, inclusive, largely re-enact previous provisions around revocation of a permit and termination of employment. It is now possible for a new decision to be made on a revocation where new information comes to light. The employee and employer must both inform the Department if the employment is terminated. This is in recognition that the use of e-permits now renders the surrender of a permit impractical.

Sections 37 to 39, inclusive, re-enact the existing provisions in cases of redundancy. They include the possibility for the Minister to grant a permit for a new role even if the occupations lists have been amended in the intervening period. This is to protect employees and to give them the opportunity to continue in the same field and at a similar salary as before.

Part 3 relates to the making of regulations by the Minister.

The detailed sections 40 to 43 largely re-enact the provisions in the existing legislation. These give the Minister the power to make regulations on subjects such as maximum number of permits, qualifications, remuneration and any conditions pertaining to the permit, as well as fees which may be waived. Section 43 focuses more on regulations about the procedures for making an application including the form of the application and evidence to be provided.

To increase the flexibility of the employment permits system, the Bill proposes that almost every instance of a quantifiable operational requirement be prescribed in regulations. Drafting has been guided by the Office of the Attorney General in order to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are in line with current jurisprudence and that any criteria moved to regulation is securely anchored in primary legislation. The joint committee, in its report, expressed concern at moving these into regulations, but we believe it is very important that we do so. This is a major aspect of the Bill because it gives us the flexibility to adapt and to swiftly change regulations as need be. I commit on the floor of the House that we will consult the committee on the regulations. We will even try to have them ready for Committee Stage in order that we can tease them out. I give my absolute commitment that if the regulations are not ready in time for Committee Stage, that I will bring them to the committee for discussion. We are not trying to hide anything here. This is an open book. Having operated the system for some years, we genuinely believe that the measures are much better set in regulation than in primary legislation. I hope Deputies will accept the Department's good faith in that regard.

Part 4 is focused on enforcement, offences and penalties and serves to protect workers’ rights. Section 44 provides powers to appoint authorised officers under the Act and sets out rights and obligations with regard to these officers. Section 45 establishes that a warrant to search a premises may be issued following an offence under this Act in line with previous Acts.

Sections 47 to 49, inclusive, establish offences for using a permit for a purpose or an employee not named on the permit, for making deductions for the cost of the permit or holding personal documents of a foreign national and for providing false information. These stipulations are in line with previous Acts.

Under section 50, the Minister may bring proceedings for these offences within 24 months. Under section 51, offences can apply to a body corporate or a natural person. Section 52 replicates provisions of the current legislation. They apply to a foreign national who works without an employment permit but has taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the Acts. Where that person is paid insufficiently, then the Minister may take civil proceedings on his or her behalf to recompense the foreign national for work done or services rendered. The right of the foreign national to institute proceedings under this section on his or her own behalf is also set out, but so doing would preclude the Minister from taking proceedings. We can discuss the matter further. Section 53 prohibits penalisation of an employee in cases such as making a complaint to An Garda Síochána, whether that is through dismissal, demotion, intimidation or other means.

Under sections 54 and 55, certain presumptions can be made under this Act. For example, if a person is witnessed carrying out work in a premises, it shall be presumed he or she is employed to do that work. Other presumptions relate to receipt of notices and the authorship of documents. Section 56 requires an employer to maintain records for inspection by authorised officers for five years.

Part 5 sets out the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill. Section 57 requires the Minister to hold the register of employment permits. Section 58 provides for the delivery of notices to employers and employees and is updated to allow delivery via any type of post rather than specifying ordinary prepaid post. Section 59 places the obligation on the parties to a permit to notify the Minister of any change of address. Section 60 provides for the delegation of functions to an officer of another Minister.

Section 61 provides for data exchange with the Department of Social Protection, the Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners.

Part 6 contains the transitional arrangements applicable to permits granted or procedures instigated under the Acts of 2003 and 2006. Part 7 sets out the consequential amendments applicable to Acts other than the current Employment Permits Acts.

I wish to add a word on schedules. A discretionary ground of refusal is included at section 26(1)(c) in circumstances where an employer has been convicted of an offence, under this legislation or a list of named Acts, in the preceding five years. Section 33(1)(b) establishes a discretionary ground of revocation if the employer has been guilty of an offence under the same list of Acts. That list is set out at Schedule 1.

Section 53(3) states that an employee cannot be penalised for giving evidence under this legislation or making a complaint to An Garda Síochána. The redress for failure to comply is set out in Schedule 2.

It is essential that we enact this Bill to provide the State with the powers necessary to deliver on the demand for skills and labour in the economy in an agile and efficient manner. That reinforces the need to make changes by regulation. The Bill achieves this important function while protecting the domestic labour market and the rights of workers who contribute so much to our economy and are so valued. I commend the Bill to the House. I look forward to engaging with the Deputies on this matter on the floor of the House today and on Committee and Report Stages as well.

I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Murchú.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this legislation. This is a very important area, one that we need to get right.

This Bill is a challenging, technical, and lengthy piece of legislation. I acknowledge the work of the officials in the Department. A not inconsiderable amount of effort has gone into producing the Bill. I understand the need to modernise our employment permits legislation and Sinn Féin wants to see progressive legislation to improve the system. We support the fair and sensible use of employment permits where there are shortages of necessary skills in our economy, but such a system must also protect the migrant workers who are in receipt of those permits. That is why we have some concerns with the approach the Government has taken in the Bill.

As it currently stands, the Bill is heavily focused on increasing flexibility for employers, but there is not a great deal relating to workers' rights. We must redress the balance. The Bill aims to increase the agility and effectiveness of the employment permit system, while retaining the policy focus of supporting the economy and the labour market through evidence-based decision making. While we accept this aim, especially in the context of the current need for economic recovery, we have concerns about the manner in which the employment permit system operates in practice. In particular, the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment received evidence that, in some cases, the employment rights of workers under the permit system - including their level of pay and their conditions of employment - are not observed or enforced. In addition, such workers experience uncertainty on their future prospects and the position of their families. At the same time, the employment permit system enables the State and employers to overlook the potential to provide training and upskilling to the workforce already in place so that they could avail of the job opportunities that become available. These issues should have been fully rectified in the Bill.

While the Bill is not without merit, it ignores the advice of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment's pre-legislative scrutiny report on a number of matters. The committee made several vital recommendations as part of its report on the Employment Permits Bill. If several of these recommendations were implemented, they would grant the same basic rights to all work permit holders and protect them from serious exploitation. The Minister of State outlined that he would be willing to work with us on Committee Stage. We have a hill to climb. We might have a fair bit of work to do, but Committee Stage is a good point at which to tease out any issues and reach agreement.

The joint committee recommended that workers with general employment permits are provided the same rights as those who are employed with critical skills permits, and that a holder of a general employment permit should have the right to gain access to the labour market after two years instead of five, which would make it easier for them to challenge exploitation and substandard conditions. The joint committee also recommended that holders of general employment permits should be given improved rights on family reunion and the access of family members to the labour market. It further recommended that the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice should address this matter in conjunction with the Bill.

The joint committee indicated that it had not seen sufficient evidence to support the proposed introduction of a seasonal employment permit and that, instead, the scope and terms of the general employment permit should be adapted to meet the need for seasonal employment with the protections and provisions under the existing scheme not diminished, and that workers' rights must not be undermined.

While some of these can be legislated for directly in the Bill, others, like the granting of full access to the labour market after two years require collaboration with the Department of Justice. In its report, the joint committee recommended that this collaboration with the Department of Justice would take place in conjunction with the Bill. As far as we can see, these recommendations have been entirely ignored, leaving workers at risk of severe exploitation. As the Minister of State is aware, these are very vulnerable workers. The very least we can do is ensure that workers who come here to fulfil a need we have are treated with the same respect and dignity that is accorded to every worker in the State.

As already stated, the Bill as it currently stands is heavily focused on increasing flexibility for employers, with not much attempt to protect workers' rights. The Minister could have used this opportunity to give the same basic rights to all employment permit holders so that they can work safely. It is regrettable that this has not been done.

Sinn Féin totally opposes any move that opens the possibility of an exploitative employment model in certain economic sectors through the introduction of seasonal employment permits, which is neither an ethical nor a sustainable solution for the sector concerned. I note what the Minister of State said about Ireland being an outlier, but it would be good if we were an outlier in providing leadership for people who need it and in providing protections for vulnerable workers.

What all workers within these sectors need is a living wage, decent pay and conditions, the right to organise and collective bargaining coverage. Only progressive changes such as this will future-proof our economy, make work pay, attract workers to sectors that struggle because they are low paid and have poor conditions, and ensure all current and future workers in these sectors are afforded decent pay and conditions.

This is not the only divergence from the recommendations of the committee. It stated that proposals to amend operational details of the permit system by way of regulation would lead to a lack of transparency and make scrutiny by the committee and others more difficult, and I welcome what the Minister of State said about working with us. Nevertheless, the Government has ploughed ahead and given fairly extraordinary powers to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment of the day to make changes to the employment permit system by way of regulation, effectively bypassing the Dáil and the Seanad. Changes in the Bill that will allow subcontractors to make use of the employment permit system are also concerning. We fear that this could lead to the abuse of migrant workers. There are already serious issues with bogus self-employment and breaches of employment law in the area of subcontracting. We feel this is incredibly risky and, as with seasonal employment permits, not an approach we can support.

Another area of concern relates to the continuation of a section that was inserted into employment permit law in the Employment Permits (Amendment) Act 2014, which continues to allow an enterprise development agency to make recommendations to the Minister for employment permits to be granted. Similarly, our reading of section 20 suggests that the 50-50 rule can be circumvented by subsection (2) on recommendations of an enterprise agency or the Minister. This is an important rule in employment permit legislation and we hope this matter can be clarified as soon as possible.

As for section 25, on the mandatory grounds for the refusal of an employment permit, we want to see this section strengthened considerably. In particular, Sinn Féin wants a mandatory refusal of an employment permit application for any company that has been found in breach of employment law in the previous five years. The Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade, and Employment received evidence that, in some cases, the employment rights of workers under the permit system, including their level of pay and conditions of employment, are not observed or enforced. We must ensure such unscrupulous employers do not have the opportunity to offend again and that there will be repercussions for any breaches of employment law.

A further area we want the Minister of State to clarify concerns the remuneration of workers. It must be made clear that where accommodation and board is provided to a worker, this is not abused as a way to provide substandard accommodation and board or, indeed, substandard wages. It must also ensure that any accommodation and board provided will be properly overseen by the Government and the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, to ensure that the valuation placed on it as remuneration is correct. I have seen at first hand some of the conditions people are living in and, for want of a better phrase, you would not put a dog in them. I have not seen examples for a long time, not since I became a Deputy, but when I was working in the union, I saw up to 13 or 14 people squashed into caravans, freezing cold, while their employer would have the neck to deduct money out of their wages at the end of the week for their bed and board and for the luxury of accommodation. There needs to be some sort of oversight of that. These are very vulnerable workers. There is often a language barrier and they may not be present in their community even though they work there, and we need to do some work on that.

The number and scale of WRC inspectors has to be seriously increased. If the purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of people coming here on work permits, we will have to increase the number of labour inspectors at a corresponding rate. That stands to reason and logic. As I said and as we all acknowledge, these are vulnerable workers and they need that little bit of extra protection. In the year to date, more than 30,000 work permits have issued and a record number of people are in employment, but there are scarcely more than 50 WRC inspectors investigating for exploitation and breaches of employment law. We also want the legislation to be amended to ensure that before workers arrive to begin employment, they will be given a full online course in workers’ rights provided by the Department in conjunction with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Will the Minister of State explain why the rates of pay for workers in the meat-processing industry have not increased since 2017, assuming the Department is continuously monitoring the sector due to the high prevalence of employment permits? Of the top five companies in receipt of employment permits, three are meat companies. The wages for meat processors and deboners were set in 2017 at €10.85 and €13.65 an hour, respectively. The rate for meat processors will increase this year, but only because the minimum wage has increased. Why has this sector, which has many workers in receipt of employment permits, not seen wages increase in five years? If these sectors are being monitored by the Department, why are the wages stagnant? Why is nobody asking that question? There has been pay movement virtually across the board, even if much of it is not enough to keep pace with inflation, but these people's wages are not moving at all. Surely somebody in the Department is asking why wages are remaining stagnant in an industry that is a high user of work permits. We do not need a colouring book to join up the dots on that one.

Sinn Féin has been clear on certain matters relating to employment permits. First, any changes to the system must have the interests of workers at their core and ensure equality for all holders. We totally oppose changes that would allow an inequitable and exploitative employment model to develop, which is neither ethical nor sustainable. On top of this, we need to ensure all workers, whether migrant workers or not, will receive a living wage, decent pay and conditions, a right to collective bargaining and a right to organise. Second, we have always insisted, in the context of the critical skills employment permit, that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment needs to develop a greater working relationship with the Departments of Education and Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science to ensure we equip students with the necessary skills for areas of the economy where there are skills shortages.

Sinn Féin supports progressive improvement of our employment permit legislation that will support and protect migrant workers and benefit the economy. However, we feel that the Bill needs to be amended in order to make it fit for purpose. We will amend it on Committee and Report Stages and any support will be contingent on the Minister engaging with us and our concerns and accepting the sensible and constructive amendments we will put forward.

The Minister of State and I have spoken many times about issues with visas and permits, relating to everyone from farm workers to chefs. We have also spoken about the workforce advisory group, which is meant to be working to ensure there are enough home carers in the context of permits and visas. There is an acceptance that there is a shortfall of positions across the board and, therefore, there is a need to update this legislation. Even so, we cannot do that at the expense of employees' rights, and that is where we need to see a good deal of interaction from the Minister of State, so I welcome that he indicated that this is going to be the case.

I thank those employees who were employed through these permits during the height of Covid-19. These people played a vital role and we are all very grateful for that. As I said, the employment permits legislation needs to be modernised and we have concerns about how the Government has so far dealt with the Bill. There are some positive elements, such as the index-linking of wage thresholds so as to keep them in line with salary growth, which is very welcome, but the Bill needs many changes to make it fit for purpose, both for employers and for those migrant workers the system could leave vulnerable to exploitation. There is wider work that needs to be done on workforce planning, and the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science will have to play a vital role in this regard. It is not just about ensuring that there is enough training; a significant cohort within this State who are well removed from both education and the workforce will probably require work to be done before they are ready for that level of training. That aspect is missing but it is vital in the context of breaking the poverty trap in which people can sometimes find themselves.

As it stands, the Bill is lopsided. It offers much to employers but little to employees. Its focus is primarily on increasing flexibility for employers but we need to see much more in order that it will protect workers' rights. Its aims are quite reasonable and fundamentally focus on improving the effectiveness of the permit system in supporting the economy and the labour market, but there continues to be concerns about how the system operates in practice.

I believe members of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment heard various testimonies that in some cases, the employment rights of workers were neither being observed nor enforced. Others spoke of the uncertainty workers face regarding their future prospects and how they are overlooked for training and upskilling opportunities, leaving them unable to avail of alternative job options. This is not okay. Recommendations were made by the committee on how the Bill could be improved. We have not quite seen that in the legislation in front of us. That needs to be fixed.

Workers employed through the general employment permit scheme should be granted the same rights as those employed with critical skills permits. Why should those employed through general permits be unable to access the labour market after two years but rather must wait five years? If these employees must wait five years, they are stuck in possible exploitative and substandard working conditions.

There was a particular concern regarding the introduction of seasonal employment permits. It was suggested that the general employment permit should be adopted instead to meet this need. There are a number of recommendations. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State said he will interact with us. There is much work to be done to make this legislation fit for purpose.

I am happy to speak to this Bill on Second Stage. We all agree it is a very technical and lengthy piece of legislation. I believe there is also agreement on the need to modernise the work permit system on which so many of our services depend, be it agrifood, IT, hygiene or caring. The Covid-19 pandemic, which is still ongoing, exposed how dependent we are on so many of these workers and how they rose to the challenges and demands made of them in extraordinary difficult and, indeed, risky circumstances. While some people could ride out the infection in airy homes and gardens, time and again, they were the people who repeatedly went out to the front line.

While we accept the need and desire to modernise the permit system, we have ongoing concerns that it could be done in a way that makes no attempt to protect workers’ rights. I am particularly concerned that while significant efforts are made to look after flexibility for employers, there is not the reciprocal concern for the protection and welfare of workers. I believe the Minister of State is missing a bigger opportunity here to really look after workers' rights and well-being in the same way it appears he is concerned about the employers.

People who are far from home are not just cogs in the wheels of industry or a means of getting to the bottom line of profit. They are spending important years of their lives here with us in Ireland. They arrive as workers but often end up as neighbours living their lives in their communities. Equally, as the Minister of State will be aware, evidence was presented to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment that under the permit system, the rights, pay and conditions of some workers were not being upheld. They also face insecurity and uncertainty on their future prospects and the position of their families. As Irish people who went to work wherever people would have us, through centuries and generations, often in very poor conditions, we have a particular duty to get it right for the workers who come here to live and work on our shores. At the same time, however, the State should not be letting itself off the hook in failing to train our own people to the requisite standards of those who come here to work. There is serious work to be done in that regard. While we must recognise that workers' permits and people going abroad to work can have a great equalising effect, that is not the case if those workers are going to be exploited, as Deputy O'Reilly already outlined. I saw this first-hand during the early years of Covid-19 when County Kildare went into lockdown because of bad practices in workplaces around meat factories.

It is regrettable that the Bill has chosen to ignore so much of the excellent advice that came from the committee, particularly the path of advice that would give all permit holders and workers strong and equal opportunity and protection. If taken and implemented, it would also protect workers' families, for example. The committee recommends that the holders of general employment permits would be given better rights with regard to family reunion. Those family members could also then be welcomed into the labour market. This is something the Minister of State and his counterparts in the Department of Justice could look at to make Ireland a compassionate, respectful and modern working destination where rights are upheld and opportunities offered. I am glad the Minister of State is open to amendments. I hope he will look on them favourably in order that we can improve the Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State and commend this legislation. My colleague, Senator Sherlock, who sits on the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, informed me that quite a number of recommendations that came from the committee were not adopted by Government when it came to this Bill.

It makes us wonder why we have cross-party pre-legislative scrutiny. To be honest, committee rooms are where this Oireachtas works best. Often, when visitors come into the Gallery, they see the back-and-forth drama and theatre that goes on in the Chamber and hear the one-liners for clips on Facebook. All the real work happens in the committee rooms, where people generally try to work on a cross-party basis to improve legislation, which is the point of the exercise. Therefore, when a group of Deputies and Senators who are Oireachtas Members from different political parties collectively come together to make recommendations to Government on what they feel, having dispassionately, if you like, scrutinised legislation, one would hope that what they say would make its way into the Government's Bill considering that those who signed up to these recommendations include members of the Minister of State's party and other Government parties. I will shortly give a reminder of these recommendations.

Some of the flags raised about this Bill came from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI. I remind the Minister of State that the MRCI is a highly responsible NGO that works with those who have been described as the most vulnerable workers in our economy. It has had endless successes in these Houses for promoting, amending or suggesting legislation. It works with Government in order to improve things and it has been endlessly successful because of the manner in which it carries out its business. Therefore, when the MRCI flags something, it is because it is genuinely concerned. We know in our political lives that when we get comments on legislation, we must ensure the representation is on the money. When a representation comes from the MRCI, however, we must take it seriously.

As was said, migrant workers in this country are disproportionately exploited and poorly paid. They are disproportionately women and, as I said, on a lower pay scale. Therefore, when legislation like this comes across our desks to be debated in the Chamber and passed into law, we must keep them to the forefront of our minds.

The committee's report on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill states:

The Committee recommends that workers with General Employment Permits are provided the same rights as those employed with Critical Skills Permits. A holder of a General Employment Permit should have the right to gain access to the labour market after two years instead of five, which would make it easier for them to challenge exploitation and substandard conditions.

The Committee recommends that holders of General Employment Permits should be given improved rights in relation to family reunion and the access of family members to the labour market, and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Justice should address this matter in conjunction with this Bill.

It goes on to state that:

The Committee has not seen sufficient evidence to support the proposed introduction of a Seasonal Employment Permit, [which is a key issue] and it is also concerned about the lack of detail in the proposal. The Committee recommends that instead of introducing the Seasonal Employment Permit, the scope and terms of the General Employment Permit be adapted to meet the need for seasonal employment. The protections and provisions under the existing General Employment Permit scheme must not be diminished, and workers’ rights must not be undermined.

What has been said, and what my colleague, Senator Sherlock, told me is that these recommendations of the committee are effectively being ignored in this Bill. The "bias" within this Bill, if we can use that word, is with the employer, to allow flexibility for the employer and not to protect the employee. The Minister of State graciously said with an open heart and with generosity, as he always does, that he will work with Members on Committee Stage.

It is my experience, and others will agree with me, that it has been possible to work with the Minister of State on Committee Stage. However, it does not augur well when at this early stage of the passage of this Bill that the recommendations put down by those who are tasked with doing pre-legislative scrutiny and trying to work best across parties to give the Minister of State advice on this have been ignored. It also does not augur well that agencies such as the MRCI are so worried about the balance of this Bill being about what is in the best interests of an employer and not in the best interests of protecting the most vulnerable of workers.

I suggest to the Minister of State that we are working with him and that we will be seeking amendments to this Bill in order to redress that balance. In all these conversations we tend to have, the balance of conversation in these Chambers seems to be about what is most important for the employer. Whenever we have a conversation about sick pay it always comes down to what will be best for the employer and the same goes for wage structures, etc. When it comes to the energy crisis we are facing into this winter and what companies, businesses and small enterprises will go through, that struggle for the employer to keep the lights on is always mentioned but not enough of this discussion is focused on the potential for employees to lose their jobs or be on reduced wages. We need to rebalance that.

While taking the Minister of State's comments at face value and while we want to work with him on it, I ask him to reflect on the fact that those who in good faith made recommendations to him during pre-legislative scrutiny in the committee, from the Government benches and from the Opposition benches, particularly around the seasonal employment permit, were ignored or feel they were ignored. I ask him also to reflect on the fact that an agency such as the MRCI, which I have worked with closely and which I hold in very high regard, is also saying it is deeply concerned about what the Government is proposing. This is Second Stage of a Bill so anything can happen and we can make changes but the Labour Party asks that at this early stage in the passage of this Bill the Minister of State would reflect on the comments I have made.

I smiled wryly at Deputy Ó Ríordáin's characterisation of the quips and one-liners because at the start we saw secondary school students in the Gallery and by God they came into a technical and dry discussion. They could have done with a few more quips and one-liners and fair play to them for sticking it out as long as they could.

I both agree and disagree with Deputy Ó Ríordáin on the value of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I do not serve on the Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment so I have not had the benefit of hearing it discussed to the same level of detail that Members who are on the committee would have. Some good work happens in that Committee Stage pre-legislative scrutiny but this Bill is not entirely blind to the work the committee did at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. What we are seeing on Second Stage has improved as a result of that committee work. There is also Committee Stage to come and it is a Bill that has a road to travel.

I also disagree with Deputy Ó Ríordáin's characterisation of this Government always being on the side of the employer. I scribbled a few notes from memory as he was speaking and under this Government we have introduced sick leave for the first time. We have also introduced domestic violence leave, increased parental leave and a right to request remote working. I know that it will probably be tomorrow at this stage by the time we see Second Stage of the work life balance and miscellaneous provisions Bill. I am not sure I can agree with that characterisation, therefore. A range of rights have been introduced by this Government that favour workers and employees and that is something I am proud of. I acknowledge the thankless work of the officials in the Department on this Bill, which is a substantial piece of work, and I acknowledge the very significant amount of work that must have gone into it.

One of the recurring phrases I see in describing this Bill talks about agility and flexibility and that is 100% required in an economy where we are struggling to get people who have the appropriate range of skills. I will give some specific examples later but I sometimes worry that phrases like "agility" and "flexibility" can lead to a bonfire of regulations. We need to ensure we can be responsive in supplying the labour market. We know the challenges we have across a range of sectors such as housing. Those challenges include retrofitting, the roll-out of solar panels, the green economy and all those things that I, as a Green Party representative, would be interested in pushing forward. It is so difficult to recruit the required skill sets into those areas at the moment but we cannot allow that to happen by undermining workers' rights. It cannot be the case that we allow people just to come into this jurisdiction and undermine, for example, the rights to collective bargaining that have been so long fought for by unions, and so on. We need to strike that balance, which this Bill does, but we need to be careful about it. We need that flexibility and to move away from a preponderance of provisions in primary legislation so that we can do things through regulation or secondary legislation and be more responsive but we must ensure the rights of workers are protected in that.

I said I would refer to a specific example and the following is a good example of where we need the type of flexibility where we have skill shortages within our economy. I have had a local company in contact with me and it wants to bring in 20 bus drivers. The case of heavy goods vehicle, HGV, drivers has been resolved and we can bring them in. I have 20 qualified bus drivers who are looking to come in, who are fluent in English and who are used to driving on the left-hand side of the road, which is important when you are trying to recruit a driver in the economy. However, we still have issues around that kind of responsiveness and this is where this Bill comes in. We want to be able to identify those sectors where we want to bring people in but we must ensure we do that in the right way.

We could look at the likes of the fisheries industry and we know there have been problems there and that workers have been recruited under practices that we might not be comfortable with. We have to acknowledge that increased vulnerability of migrant workers who come here for seasonal employment. We need to ensure those people are afforded the type of protections that I would expect to be in place in my economy. We have to also acknowledge that the labour shortages we are seeing are a function of a well-performing economy. In particular, I note with interest the increased participation of women within our workforce. That was unexpected and it is largely to do with the possibility to request remote and flexible working practices. That is positive as long as we have those in-built protections but it is positive that we have an economy that is performing that well.

I take the opportunity to welcome platform working. I know Deputy O'Reilly and Senator Sherlock have engaged with SIPTU on this. This is a difficult to reach sector of the workforce, not just in this jurisdiction but all across the EU. We are struggling to adapt our legislation to account for something that is not quite employment and that certainly is not quite self-employment either. Often they are migrant workers from a different jurisdiction who might be here on a student visa and who are doing some work. They are difficult to reach but they need to be protected.

These employment permits can be issued to those whose skills are required in the State, where those skills are in critical short supply and that shortage is likely to hinder growth and economic opportunity. It is that point on growth and economic opportunity that I want to dwell on for a moment because maybe those are not the only factors that we want to consider. Maybe there is room for things like reaching our climate targets. I referred to those specific skills but is there scope for that? It also chimes with the idea that maybe we should be looking at an Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, waiver for intellectual property on technology to fight climate change such as climate carbon and storage. I know that is not quite to the point but I am saying that growth and economic development might be slightly too confined as criteria within which we would consider these work permits.

There are a number of positive elements to the Bill that will help in improving the current system. These include the index-linking of wage thresholds to keep them in line with salary growth and the provision for additional conditions for granting an employment permit, such as training and accommodation support for migrant workers or making innovation or upskilling a condition of granting, which may decrease future reliance on economic migration.

Sinn Féin supports the fair and sensible use of employment permits where there are shortages of necessary skills in our economy. For example, on the back of a Sinn Féin motion on services for children with disabilities in March this year, a number of therapist positions, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists, were added to the critical skills list in June. That was a necessary and welcome intervention. However, this should only be done when necessary and should not be used if we are not first ensuring we are equipping our students with critical skills in areas where we have skills shortages and also improving the pay and conditions of workers. Doing that is important to ensure we have the requisite skill sets across our economy and to retain those skilled staff. To this end, it is vital that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment works closely with the Departments of Education and Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, and other Departments where appropriate, in planning for future skills requirements.

While my party and I understand the need to modernise our employment permits legislation, we have some concerns about the approach the Government is taking with this Bill. As it stands, the legislation is focused solely on increasing flexibility for employers, with absolutely no attempt to protect workers' rights. Many of these issues were highlighted during pre-legislative scrutiny and in a report published by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which made several vital recommendations the Minister of State seems to have ignored or disregarded. Several of those recommendations, if implemented, would grant the same basic rights to all work permit holders and protect them from serious exploitation.

I do not have time to go through each of the committee's recommendations, most of which have been dealt with by colleagues. However, there are two points I want to raise. First, the section on the mandatory grounds for refusal of employment permits needs to be strengthened. In particular, there should be mandatory refusal of a permit application for any company found to have been in breach of employment law in the previous five years. We should ensure unscrupulous employers do not have the opportunity to offend again and that they are punished for breaching employment law. Second, I would like to see the legislation amended such that before workers arrive, they are given access to a full online course on their employment rights, provided by the Department in conjunction with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU.

Sinn Féin supports the improvement of our employment permits legislation but it must be done in a progressive manner that supports and protects workers and also benefits the economy.

Immigration is a net positive for this country. People who come here from abroad improve our culture and the country is richer for it. The State has a responsibility to those workers to ensure they are treated equally and fairly and to protect their rights as workers and also as individuals. This is not a responsibility the State has upheld very well to date.

With that responsibility to ensure equal treatment in mind, this Bill raises many red flags. It is clear from the contributions of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at pre-legislative scrutiny stage and elsewhere that the Bill is written first and foremost to benefit employers. Workers' rights are very much a secondary issue in this legislation. Making the employment permits system more flexible to the labour market is not a bad idea in itself but flexibility without parliamentary oversight and where there are limited workers' rights is unacceptable. The employment permits system pits workers against each other and provides different rights and protections dependent on how much the Department values their profession. This is not fair and it leaves workers - the same essential workers we all praised over the past few years - in incredibly vulnerable positions in some workplaces. It limits their ability to put down roots, save money, be promoted and even the ability to change their employment when working conditions are poor.

The response from the Government to these concerns will be the usual thing we hear, namely, that all workers in the State are protected and we all have the same rights and protections regardless of where we come from. That is not the reality, however, and we all know it. We can see evidence of this in the minimum remuneration thresholds under the various employment permits. Those thresholds are €32,000 for a person with a degree on the critical skills list, which is below the living wage, €30,000 for a general employment permit, €27,000 for staff in contact centres and €22,000 for horticulture workers and dairy farm assistants. Even before the most recent spike in inflation, we all knew there was an issue in this country with the very high cost of living. It is difficult to see how the Minister can justify the Department working towards a living wage while simultaneously allowing these thresholds to be in place.

One of the most critical factors in determining a migrant worker's experience in the labour market is his or her experience of the point of entry, which is tied together with immigration status. Employment and immigration status are a constant worry for migrant workers, particularly when they have work permits that tie them to their employer for their first 12 months in this country. Such a status limits their ability to negotiate with an employer for better conditions and terms of employment, with employers holding power over their employees' ability to work and reside here. I am not suggesting for a minute that all employers exert this power; far from it. Most really value their employees but there are some who abuse their power. Even when that power is not abused by the employer and the latter would not even dream of doing so, workers still feel there is a power differential. It is always there and is perceived as a threat.

Tying workers' immigration status and access to the labour market to a single employer is a fundamentally poor idea. The exploitation of workers under such schemes has been well documented and they benefit the employer alone. The Department should be working on phasing those schemes out rather than creating new ones. The Migrants Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, which has been referred to on numerous occasions in this debate, has recommended that a sector-based permit system be introduced, which would afford workers the ability to switch employers within a particular sector. That ability would give them leverage to negotiate and would force employers to improve pay and conditions to retain staff. This would benefit good employers and allow for flexibility. It makes a great deal of sense. Has the Department examined that suggestion from the MRCI? I would like a response on that from the Minister of State. The proposal seems to address the labour shortages in particular sectors on the critical skills list while also removing opportunities for exploitation.

It is my understanding that in the 11 years of the existence of the critical skills list, no occupations have been taken off it. There are many provisions within our laws on employment permits to protect Irish and EEA workers and ensure employers are not always looking abroad for staff. The critical skills list is supposed to have a dual purpose, that is, to identify the skills shortages we need migrant workers to fill and to identify the areas in which domestic workers need to be upskilled to ensure there is some movement on the list. It is clear the latter has not been done. What is the view of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science on this? What is being done to address these skills shortages? It would be useful to have a response from the Minister of State in this regard. If the Government is looking for employment permits to be made flexible and responsive to the needs of the labour market, then our education system must be flexible as well. It is clear, however, it is failing in that regard and I would like to know why that is.

As I said, I have concerns the Department is crafting this legislation primarily from the perspective and interest of employers. The move in the Bill towards the use of regulation as opposed to legislation for changes in the system really is not acceptable. It fundamentally reduces the democratic oversight of the system, which is one that needs more daylight shone on it, not less.

I understand, from the employer's perspective, that the ability of the Department to make quick changes to the skills list would be very attractive. That is not so for the workers, whose employment conditions, and therefore immigration status, could be changed overnight without any warning. We cannot presume it always goes in one direction. It provides far less certainty and security for workers. Some particularly convincing lobbyists or an economic downturn could mean that people's whole lives are uprooted. We must think about the fact that these are individual people. It is their lives and livelihoods that are impacted. The system we have in place operates on the assumption that workers on permits are here temporarily. That is not the case for many in practice. Migrant workers build lives here and they stay. The system has to recognise their contribution to the country and give them a clear avenue to permanent residency and citizenship. People who are recruited on temporary permits need to have the ability to transition into long-term status if they meet the requirements of other permits. Treating migrant workers fairly and equally is not just the right thing to do morally, it is the smart thing to do economically. We need people to come here to work. Ireland needs to be as attractive a destination as possible for workers, because people do not emigrate across the world on a whim. They shop around and survey their options. If Ireland is not providing good working conditions, pay, family reunification and a pathway to permanent residency, then workers will go elsewhere. To continue to treat migrant workers as expendable temporary labour who will plug a gap in the market and then be asked to leave is foolish and morally bankrupt. Very often, skill sets are enhanced by virtue of the fact of being embedded in the local culture. All of that is lost if migrant workers leave.

When discussing employment permits, workers' rights and the dangers of having one's immigration and working entitlements tied to an employer, we have to raise the issue of the appalling conditions in the Irish fishing industry. Despite the clear need for labour in the industry, fishers have not been included on the critical skills permit list. Instead, a bespoke scheme was put in place, the atypical working scheme, which is absolutely rife with exploitation. The Government has been sitting on recommendations to reform the sector since last March, showing very little regard for the incredibly vulnerable workers in the sector. I was particularly struck by an interview in the Irish Independent last month with Adel Sallam, an undocumented fisherman who lost his job last May when two of his fingers were severed in an accident on board a trawler. He came to Ireland, with over 20 years of experience in the fishing industry in Egypt, to fill a gap in our labour market that the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Employment will not acknowledge on the critical skills list. The International Transport Workers Federation estimates there are between 250 and 300 undocumented fishers in the State, with at least 200 of them having been documented at one point. The exploitative working conditions at sea, including incredibly long hours, inevitably lead to fatigue and accidents. From 2016 on, the US State Department, the International Transport Workers Federation, the UN special rapporteurs and the Council of Europe have all expressed the view that the atypical working scheme does not have enough safeguards in place to prevent human trafficking and exploitation. Despite some changes to the scheme over the years, conditions have worsened. The new regulations are not enforced and when inspectors are sent on board boats, migrant workers feel unable to talk to them or are prevented from doing so. There is a power and inequality issue here. One worker in the system said it was like a visa into slavery. We have to deal with that comprehensively. The WRC carried out 454 inspections up to June 2021 on fishing boats, and found that 323 instances breached conventions. These reports have been consistent. They have come from workers, journalists, unions, international bodies and human rights organisations. To date, the State has refused to take them seriously. The review of that scheme has been completed. It needs to be released as soon as possible, and the working conditions of vulnerable people in this sector need to be regularised.

I wish to finish by saying that I think the pre-legislative scrutiny, as part of the legislative process, is really beneficial when it is done right. It saves us from having to really interrogate the various angles and interest groups later on in the process. The problem is that when it is not done correctly or when some of the issues are not taken on board, it is very difficult to make changes later on. If we are going to have that scrutiny as part of our legislative process, we have to set aside the time to do it and take on board the issues at that point. It is very difficult to get them in later on. I like pre-legislative scrutiny as a process and I have been through it with some committees. In some cases, it is very good and in some cases it is not. It is a mixed bag. We have to take the scrutiny process seriously and really pay attention on Committee Stage, which will enable us to have most of the work done by Report Stage. I support that approach. It takes the same length of time to deal with legislation anyway because if we are going to spend much more time on Report Stage or Committee Stage, it defeats the purpose of having a really good pre-legislative stage. That can really benefit that.

I strongly welcome this legislation. Indeed, I have just expressed my gratitude to the Minister of State in the Chamber for his assistance with so many different representations received over the past number of years in particular, from employers and workers alike, who are caught in what is quite a Byzantine system. I would like to start by picking up on a point made by Deputy Catherine Murphy on the need, not just within this legislation but more generally, to have a formulised pathway to long-term status for people who originally come here on a work permit, and particularly the short-term skills-necessary permits. I think it is in our interest not just as an economy, but more so as a society, that when welcoming people to come here and carry out really critical jobs and fill gaps in our labour market, we do so in a generous manner knowing that ultimately it is in our interest and their interest for them to be able to make a long-term home in Ireland and make this a really welcoming place. That is how we can develop a thriving sector in each part of the economy, and crucially, make Ireland an even more attractive economy to come to for many different workers, as well as ensuring that employees and employers alike have the necessary skills. I think that requires a bit of work not just in the Minister of State's own Department but also with the Department of Justice. Coming out of a pandemic with changing and shifting economic tectonic plates, there is a real opportunity in Ireland not only as an investment hub but also as a hub for talent. We want more and more people to come here to complement a very talented indigenous workforce. We do so with an eye on longer-term prosperity for worker and economy alike.

I think we all have to recognise that there is a severe labour shortage in our economy in every single sector, and it is shifting. While I welcome the change of occupations and the ongoing work of the Minister of State and others, and particularly the work of Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, in her previous brief, to review the occupations, I think we have to move to a situation where the definition is far more flexible. The nature and method of work and the requirements of employer and employee alike are changing. We should be able to bring more and more talented workers into this jurisdiction in a more holistic environment, for want of a better word. Some of the occupations have been far too prescribed in the past, which means that there are far too many anomalies, where people simply are not fitting the exact requirement. The nature of what once was defined as an occupation has changed so drastically, particularly over the past couple of years, that it needs to be reviewed. Looking at the key areas in our own constituencies, of which we are all aware, from the care and hospitality sectors to bookmaking, there are so many gaps. I am inundated with representations from small business owners across my constituency, who are constantly looking to plug gaps. They are increasing wages and improving conditions, but still there is a shortage, whether it is of chefs, bookkeepers or technicians in the ICT sector. We must realise that there are only so many training courses and courses in this country that can address that situation.

We must examine how to make this a more attractive jurisdiction for people within the EEA and, crucially, to be generous and outward looking. We must consider the level of talent we could be bringing in from outside jurisdictions.

When considering those severe labour shortages, we must also examine the issues around the recognition of qualifications and encourage a more swift standard of mutual recognition of qualifications. Look at drivers of heavy goods vehicles, HGV, in the past couple of years. There are only five or six jurisdictions outside the EEA that match the standards in Ireland. We need to bring other jurisdictions into play in more situations by recognising their qualifications. That requires us in Ireland to put more effort into research. It should not always be a matter for the applicants to prove themselves or for the third-party jurisdiction to look at its standards. We must go out and investigate their standards and make the decision for ourselves. That could save a great amount of time and effort in the long term.

I particularly welcome a couple of aspect of this legislation which I consider worthwhile. The waiving of the 50:50 rule is welcome and far-sighted. Considering the changing nature of the ownership of businesses and the potential make-up of the workforce in the coming years, that change is a welcome reflection of reality. It has happened in other jurisdictions, both within and without the European Union, to the betterment of all.

I also welcome the introduction of the conditionality of training for existing staff. We talk about continuing professional development but that is also the role of the employer. Many employers have a great niche in that regard. The employer has a role in constantly improving the abilities and capabilities of staff members and employees to serve the needs of that company but must also ensure the future career prospects of those employees. All of us in this House are employers and have a duty of care to the people we employ in our offices not just so they can serve our offices and political ambitions but so we can serve them, as individuals. That is a responsibility we should all take seriously. We need to lead by example. That is a particularly welcome aspect of the legislation. It is an area where the Government needs to have a hands-on role with the representative bodies to ensure that companies are in a position to do this and embrace it.

The make-up of those employers seeking permits, and indeed those individuals seeking permits, is changing greatly. The demands are changing and many of the people who are engaging with the system are now doing so for the first time. They did not think they would need a talented staff member from outside Ireland or the EEA. It is still quite an intimidating process. The level of outreach and simplicity in the system needs to be considered again to ensure that employers are not making mistakes. It is welcome that the rules around the refusal of incomplete applications are changing but we must ensure we do not get to that stage. It should be easy for an employer to bring in a talented individual to a good job on a good salary with good conditions. It is not be something we should ever try to make difficult.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share