Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 2005

Employment Permits Bill 2005: Presentations.

I welcome Mr. John Dunne, chief executive, Mr. Sean Murphy, head of research and public affairs, Mr. John Forde, HR policy council and Human Resource manager for Celtic Linen, and MsCaoimhe Gavin, policy and research executive of The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland who will make a presentation on the Employment Permits Bill 2005 in advance of Committee Stage.

Before asking Mr. Dunne to commence his opening statement, I draw attention to the fact that while members have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name so as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Dunne to begin his presentation.

Mr. John Dunne

The Acting Chairman has introduced the members of the group. Mr. John Forde is the group human resource manager with Celtic Linen, a company based in Wexford and is also a member of our HR policy council, a group of business people who advise The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland on its policy positions as they are being formulated. I suspect that politicians, in particular, look on CCI officials as hired guns and wonder from where we get our mandate. Mr. Forde is here to keep us honest today.

The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland is coming to talk about the Bill from an opening position of being totally and completely supportive of its aspirations. We welcome it enthusiastically as we have been encouraging it for at least two years. It is fair to say that at the earlier stages the State and the Department were taken aback by our need for overseas labour. Prior to the expansion of the European Union, the administrative system was clogged up with the number of people trying to get into Ireland, giving rise to feelings of chaos and poorly thought out policy. The Bill gives us an opportunity to capture the initiative to meet the need for non-national workers. Having regard to the fact that we cannot source all workers from the enlarged European Union, although many come from EU countries, we think it is a very important Bill.

We have six points of concern, which we will raise in an entirely constructive manner and I will now ask each of my colleagues to address two of them.

Deputy M. Brady took the Chair.

Mr. Sean Murphy

I will address two themes, a clear pathway to citizenship and also the issue of the partner of the permit holder having the right to work.

Although the Employment Permits Bill 2005 alludes to the US Green Card system, in fact what is being proposed in the Bill as drafted is an employment permit system. If we are to adopt a Green Card system à la the United States, it implies that if a person keeps his or her nose clean and stays crime free, becomes an active participant in that society over a number of years, typically five years, he or she has an option of permanent residency and ultimately citizenship in the state in which he or she resides. Although the Minister has alluded to the fact that this is coming, it is not in place in the Bill to hand. It is imperative as the legislation makes its way through the Oireachtas that this should be addressed.

Another issue regarding the permits Bill is the provision for a pathway to citizenship. While the Employment Permits Bill puts the current working visa authorisation schemes on a statutory footing, it is worth noting that section 7(5)(b) enables the Minister to grant permission to work for periods longer than two years, if he so wishes, by introducing further regulations in the future. The key point is that we do not have an indication of what those regulations are or how they will be implemented. A skilled migrant who is coming to this country must think about investing his or her time and skills in the country and must have a clear and transparent set of rules as to what he or she must do to build and develop inclusion in this society.

In his remarks on the introduction of the Bill, the Minister alluded to the partner of the permit holder having a right to work. However, as of now there is no provision for the partners of skilled migrants to participate in society. We have already stated that the partners of migrant nurses should be allowed to work in this country, but that applies in respect of all migrant workers recruited to work here. Ireland is not a cheap place in which to live. The potential for poverty among low paid workers with dependants who are married to a person who does not work is quite high. We would argue strongly that the Bill should provide for the right to work from the date of arrival of the partner of a skilled worker.

Mr. John Forde

The two areas I will cover are the working permit and, second, bureaucracy and the possible overlapping between Departments.

The application and renewal process for work permits has been recognised as opaque and protracted. While the Employment Permits Bill attempts to make the process more transparent, efficient and straightforward, the level of administration involved will be quite cumbersome. Both employers and employees must deal with a high level of bureaucracy and accept lengthy decision-making periods as part of the work permits process. The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland is suggesting that we streamline the system to enable the migrant to apply directly for his or her renewed permit, having successfully complied with the conditions of the initial permit. This would give greater control to the non-Irish resident over his or her life and career in Ireland, while relieving the employer of the burden of red tape. It might also assist, to some extent, in exposing and lifting the grip of the exploitive employers on the workers.

On the question of overlapping of Departments, the CCI is concerned that resolution of these key issues may well be lost in a perception in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform respectively that these issues might belong to the other Department and therefore fall between them. Accordingly, a cross-departmental structure is needed to address responsibilities for this crucial means of embedding skilled migrants into Irish society.

The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, might well fulfil this role. However, it is not clear that this will be the case. It is also not clear how this role of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will link in with INIS on these matters. I expect that the acronym INIS, which is how we refer to some of the islands off the coast, would refer more to the overall island status rather than a possible reluctance we may have toward inclusion and change.

Ms Caoimhe Gavin

I will speak on the categorisation of workers and also the sanctions for exploitive employers. When speaking in the Dáil three weeks ago the Minister identified three different categories of migrant workers which are defined by salary brackets. He noted that regard would be paid to the skills, qualifications and experience of workers in the allocation of employment permits. The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland supports this form of categorisation and sees merit in providing employment permits for those with salaries in excess of €60,000, as this is a reasonable proxy for high skills and an assurance that workers can provide for their families without State assistance.

The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland welcomes the sanctions contained in the Bill for employers who exploit migrant workers. Migrant workers will play a key role in fulfilling our labour needs in the coming years. A person or company which acts in a way that brings into disrepute Irish employers and jeopardises this continued supply of labour should be reprimanded accordingly. However, more resources are needed to ensure that migrants are not taken advantage of and that employers are operating legally. The Bill proposes raising the number of labour inspector posts to 31. Clearly, this figure is insufficient, particularly when one considers that the number of full-time dog wardens employed in the State last year was 41 and that this did not include 20 part-time wardens. The streamlining of the work permit process as outlined by Mr. Dunne will allow for the redeployment of staff away from paperwork policing of the system to a properly resourced labour inspectorate.

I welcome the delegation. This presentation is probably the best we have heard in a long time because it is so concise and clear. What the representatives state is very welcome. The majority are under the impression that chambers of commerce are synonymous with IBEC and employers and that their aim is to get what they can from the worker. It was very interesting to hear the delegation's take on the Employment Permits Bill, which is very close to what this committee has been saying for a long time in pushing for the legislation.

I am interested in the right to work for partners. Since this committee was set up, it has been stating we cannot expect highly skilled individuals to stay within the economy if their partners cannot stay here also, particularly when they are in permanent relationships, married and have children. We cannot expect them to have a commitment to this country or economy unless they have some incentive to be here, and the incentive is not always financial. They must see that they are part and parcel of the community. We have been pushing this aspect of the Bill very strongly with the Minister and it is important that the chambers of commerce should do the same.

On the inspectorate, Cork is experiencing a boom. Cork city is catching up in the infrastructural stakes. Where Dublin was six years ago, Cork is now. Therefore, it has a very intensive building industry. Where I live I still see groups of workers, mainly Polish, who have nowhere to go. They meet in groups at night and it is notable that they are all men; there are no women in their company. Clearly, they have relationships somewhere else. They are to be found on virtually every building site in Cork. Despite this, we are providing for only 31 inspectors. If all employers were as concerned as the members of the delegation, we probably would not need any inspectors. However, it is clear we need more than 31. I would appreciate if the delegation could indicate how many inspectors it believes would be necessary. Will it be meeting the Minister and pushing this aspect also? Those are my two main concerns.

It seems the work permit will still be retained by the employer, not the employee. That is still a big stumbling block, on which I would like to hear the delegation's view because I do not see a reference to it in the presentation.

Mr. Dunne

On the retention of the permit by the employer, our view is that the employer should seek the permit in the first instance but once it comes up for renewal, it should be transferred to the worker who should own it from then on.

On the question of citizenship and the right to work, one of the key challenges we put to legislators is that there is a second piece of legislation fermenting in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which has major implications for this legislation. It will be dealt with by another committee. Our biggest worry is that we will wind up with two pieces of legislation that are not fundamentally synergistic. There will be an agenda from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which is concerned about controlling inward migration, restricting citizenship and the right to work. We will also have this legislation which is very strong on aspiration but not necessarily strong enough on guaranteeing anything. We have no doubts as to the Minister's commitment. However, we have a situation where two Ministers are trying to work with two pieces of legislation that effectively come from different ends of the spectrum. That is a real worry for us.

On the inspectorate, the Department has estimated that it needs between 45 and 55 inspectors. We reckon 50 would be a reasonable estimate. I emphasise that we get very frustrated when public bodies announce new initiatives and that new staff will be hired. In every case there should be an indication of how much it will cost and how it is to be paid for. Efficiencies are necessary within a streamlined system for the administration of permits to allow resources to be freed in order that the 50 inspectors could be funded from within the existing resources pot.

I welcome the delegation. The presentation was very well made and gone through quickly because it was divided up.

There seem to be a few problems. Members of the delegation spoke about a clear and transparent path to citizenship. Will they elaborate on what they meant? They also spoke about wives and partners and have mentioned that, even though it has been stated they have the right to work, it is not encompassed in the Bill. They have also mentioned that this issue comes under two Departments. I agree that is cumbersome because if one wants to follow up on something, one does not know which Department to approach. There was also reference to streamlining the system to enable migrants to apply directly. The question was answered.

What the members of the delegation have been saying is not very different from what the members of this committee have been saying. However, they might elaborate on these points.

Mr. Murphy

Regarding a clear and transparent path to citizenship, one of the issues applies especially to skilled migrants. However, it applies to everyone in that there is a worldwide search for bright energetic people to come into societies and work. Australia, Canada and America have longer experience of this and put in place procedures that are very clear to those coming in regarding what they have to do to build their lives and careers in those countries. Essentially, therefore, a migrant in America knows that if he or she stays out of trouble, pays his or her taxes and builds a life for himself or herself in America, all things being equal, when he or she has been recruited on a skill visa, he or she will acquire a right to permanent residency and ultimate citizenship in that society. It is a quid pro quo. They work hard, contribute and become citizens. That is one side of the issue. There is an opportunity in this country in an era of almost full employment to establish similar procedures very clearly mapped out of what a person would have to do to build his or her life in this society. If we did this, it would give us a competitive advantage over other countries that are trying to recruit the same individuals.

A second element involves extending working rights to partners. America does not do this. If one goes to America, the acronym that applies is YOYO — you're on your own. It would give us a competitive advantage over America if we enabled skilled migrants and their partners to work upon their arrival here. Given that this is an expensive society in which to live, enabling people to embed themselves in a community via work, often the first place people build relationships, would be very important in building relationships in this society, especially if either of the partners is not all that linguistically developed in the use of English. It would give us a competitive advantage if we addressed this issue.

On the matter coming under two Departments, members of the committee are more aware than we are that this is an issue for joined-up governance. In trying to get the best for this country and making sure the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, that is essentially what we are calling for.

Mr. Dunne

To elaborate on the point on international competitiveness, we tend to approach this, even in an enlightened way, rather negatively — these floods of people are something about which we have to be careful and manage properly. If we look at the history of the American economy, innovation has been driven by immigrants. Since the events of 11 September 2001 that door has been largely shut. We are in a separate part of Government policy in stating we are spending €800 million to try to attract world-class research through science funds and so on. There is, however, a labour force dimension to the matter, to the heart of which the Bill goes in a very positive and exciting way. The future of the economy will be about leading world-class talent to Ireland which we must make as welcoming as possible. Quite apart from the need for 50,000 people to keep the economy grinding along, we also need a couple of Bill Gates to move here to keep it going.

Like other members, I welcome the deputation. The Bill generated a great deal of debate when it was before the Dáil two weeks ago. Do the delegates think the system should be called a green card system or is that the wrong name for it? Will skilled workers take their skills elsewhere if their spouses are not allowed to enter the country? Is it a good idea that an employer should keep the work permit for an employee?

Mr. Dunne

While there are advantages to having a non-national or international worker obtain his or her work permit initially through the employer who will bring him or her here, we state clearly that there is no reason thereafter for the employer to hold on to the permit. Many employers, as Mr. Forde is here to confirm, would prefer to be spared the hassle. There are negative perceptions around the business voice on this matter. To be fair to IBEC and other business organisations, the vast majority of businesses do not want bonded labour, do not mind letting go of work permits and do not fear an increased inspectorate. The most significant competitive threat to a law-abiding company is a company which cuts corners and breaks the law. The inspectorate ensures the playing pitch is level. Some of the negative spin about business perceptions of international workers is, therefore, unfair. To be very clear, we do not want employers to own work permits or a bonded labour system to obtain.

Deputy Breen asked whether the term green card system should be used. It is not a green card system in the sense that such a term is normally understood. Having said that, if a tag becomes current in the media, I do not know how one can counter it.

There is a very real risk, as we have seen already to some extent, that skilled workers will not come here. My greatest worry is that with two conflicting legislative provisions, one will begin to see ad hoc solutions. If it is decided, for example, that there is a desperate need for nurses, the spouses and partners of nurses will be allowed to work here. This constitutes the creation of an unfair, two-tier system. If one analyses the issue, there appear to be many decisions which favour public sector needs, which are perhaps felt more immediately, while the private sector is assumed to be able to cope. It is important to get this right from the start.

There are very few migrant workers earning an annual income of €55,000 to €60,000.

Mr. Dunne

Ms Gavin can speak in more detail about that as it was one of our challenges to the Minister. The categorisation system is more sophisticated. While there have been some concerns expressed by the voluntary sector about the principle of categorisation, we consider it to be a sensible, pragmatic solution. I will let Ms Gavin elaborate.

Ms Gavin

We are hoping to attract skilled migrant workers who would earn approximately €60,000 per year. There are two categories which are not alluded to in the Bill but to which the Minister referred in his speech in the Dáil two weeks ago. These are those earning between €30,000 and €60,000 in a limited number of occupations specified by the future skills expert group and those earning less than €30,000 per year. Those in the latter category of worker in the non-high skilled sector will continue to receive the work permits as established, while those in the former category will receive the employment permits which have been referred to as green cards. Other categories will be allotted.

Would that not lead us into a very dangerous area in that categorisation constitutes a form of wage control? Employers or employees could justify the argument that an increase in income either cannot be provided or, if provided, cannot be declared to avoid moving from one category to another. A Minister may respond that the legislation will not apply in the way I have outlined but it will apply as outlined in black and white on the page.

In the context of those earning above €30,000, it is clear that different levels of skill and qualification are contemplated which may change as needs change. Currently, such skills are needed in the high technology and science sectors and in research funded by Science Foundation Ireland. While workers in this category are to be offered the incentive of citizenship if they want it, will that provision not eventually be challenged legally? Many Irish people working abroad wish to retain their citizenship rather than adopt someone else's. Whereas the proposed approach may be practical from the point of view of current employer and skills needs, I can envisage circumstances arising which are similar to those experienced in Germany not that long ago in which citizenship was not provided to people who were second and third generation residents. The failure was challenged and found to be unlawful. I wonder if we are moving into that area by introducing categorisation.

Mr. Dunne

My instinct is that rather than constitute a form of wage control, categorisation will function in the opposite way. The higher the salary, the greater the liberalisation. If someone working in the €30,000 to €60,000 category is very valuable to a company but his or her skill is deemed by the expert group no longer to be in shortage, the only way to keep the person will be to increase his or her wages above €60,000 to exempt the worker from categorisation.

What about the lower end of the scale?

Mr. Dunne

There is a delicate balancing act to be performed here. If one considers what is driving the Irish economy currently compared to its driving force five years ago, one will see that the main factors now are domestic spending and the construction sector, both of which, as everybody recognises, are transitory. As the previous driver, foreign direct investment, will never return to its former level of influence, we must use the current gap to grow another 1,000 to 2,000 key indigenous world-class companies in the mid-range. It is with such companies that the long-term future of the economy resides. Without suggesting a return to the Dark Ages, if we fail to deliver such growth, we will begin to slide backwards. We must have regard in those circumstances to the likely political and social implications of a significant migrant population with rights to reside but no available jobs to take up. That was precisely the problem faced in Germany and Austria and it accounts for an issue with Turkish accession.

We must measure what we do. While rights must be provided, we must be careful about how we proceed. The calculation is that for general labour needs, at incomes below €30,000, it is exceptional to seek people from outside the EU to fill posts. The Poles are not an issue under the legislation as they have a right through the EU to be here. There are millions of Poles who, if the incentives are right, will come here. The Deputy is right to indicate that internationally people who travel to make some money tend to go home again and are not committed to staying in a foreign country in the long term. I am not sure Ireland is especially inhospitable, though if one is from outside the EU it will not be easy to come to Ireland on a work permit. That is inevitable given the number of people within the expanded Union who have a right to come here. While it is a little hard on those from outside the EU, I am not sure it would be better in the long term to open the door any wider.

Mr. Murphy

While Science Foundation Ireland was mentioned, we should also be aware that the foreign direct investment sector employs approximately 140,000 people. Approximately 5,500 US citizens are resident in Ireland now and I would be surprised if at least 2,000 of them were not multinational executives. As their partners may feel isolated while living here, why should we not make it easy for them to contribute to our society for the three to five years they are here by enabling them to work? The policy should be to make Ireland hospitable while they are here.

I welcome the delegation to the meeting and compliment its members on setting out their case clearly and concisely. This is appreciated as sometimes delegates make presentations and by the end of the session we are still trying to understand what they are trying to tell the committee. It is refreshing to listen to a concise presentation.

I regard two points made in the presentation to be important, on the right of partners to work and the elimination of bureaucracy. As I have yet to speak on this subject in the Dáil, I would be glad to refer to the delegation's submission in the House.

Mr. Forde

On the issuing of work permits, from an employer's perspective, The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland would desire to have the employee carry the permit in his or her own name and to have a right of choice. This would remove any fear and concerns one may have and deal with the issues publicised recently in the media relating to certain employments.

On the right of a partner or spouse to work in this country, workers are suffering the same exclusion as that suffered by the Irish in America, some of whom were unable to return to Ireland for more than 40 years and who spent the time on their own isolated. I know of people who are trying to get home to visit their families and my organisation will accommodate them. If families accompany workers to Ireland, there is a greater opportunity for them to integrate into our society. They will not then be the "foreigner" but become part of Irish society. While I do not advocate an open door policy because there certainly should be controls in place, we should be a little more human in our approach.

In Mr. Forde's opinion, will some migrant workers remain undocumented following enactment of the Bill?

Mr. Forde

I am sure that will be the case. For instance, there is a large Irish population in America, some of whom cannot leave that country because they are not documented. It will not be possible to close all those doors.

I inform The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland that we disagree with its stance on the groceries order.

The committee agrees entirely with the Cork Chamber of Commerce, if the delegation wishes to read its position.

I thank the representatives of The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland for their attendance and providing an excellent and concise presentation. It has been a very interesting discussion which will be of benefit to the committee on Committee Stage of the Bill.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.15 a.m. until Wednesday, 2 November 2005.

Top
Share