JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS debate -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 2005

Employment Permits Bill 2005: Presentation.

Vice-Chairman (Deputy M. Brady)

Apologies have been received from the Chairman, Deputy Cassidy, who is attending another meeting, and Senator Coghlan.

I welcome Ms Esther Lynch, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, Mr. Mike Jennings, regional secretary of SIPTU, and Mr. Gareth Keogh, ICTU. Before their presentation on the Employment Permits Bill 2005, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of 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 or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Ms Lynch to make her presentation for ten to 15 minutes before taking questions.

Ms Esther Lynch

I thank the Chairman and members. I am joined by Mr. Mike Jennings, senior official with SIPTU, and Mr. Gareth Keogh, who has worked on helping migrant workers.

The majority of employers treat their employees well and these are being disadvantaged by rogue or unscrupulous employers. Any comments we make do not refer to specific officials, who always give us a sympathetic hearing and assist us even if they are not always in agreement with us.

We have a number of problems with the Employment Permits Bill. The legislation is unnecessarily complicated, especially as the phrase "employment permit" has four or five different meanings throughout. One is not always clear on what rights evolve from the Bill. Many of the measures in it require further legislation because sections begin by stating that the Minister will make regulations for the measures that follow. As much of this legislation is discretionary it might, or might not, work in an employee's favour. Provisions may or may not apply and employees in identical situations may have different outcomes. We are happy to discuss this further with members.

I draw the attention of members to the assumed safeguards provided in the Bill. One of the provisions states that employment permits will not be granted without the Minister and his officials having an opportunity to see what pay and conditions will apply. That sounds like a good safeguard but the Bill affords no protection for workers who receive less than the stated conditions. The Bill further complicates matters by introducing the concept that a standard working week is minimum wage. From our point of view, a standard working week is much more than minimum wage. This is one of the key provisions that needs change. The Bill must recognise the going rate for a job and ensure that people are paid it.

Mr. Jennings will explain how the Bill will tie many employees to their employers. What can an employer do with regard to an employee who complains that he or she was promised €12 per hour and was then paid the minimum wage, €7.65 per hour? That employer can refuse to reapply for the permit at the end of the year or can dismiss the employee. No social security safety net will be provided for such persons to allow them to claim that they were unfairly dismissed for standing up for their rights. We have many concerns about the implementation of the Bill and the lack of access to a social security net. Those who have been obliged to leave abusive employers would have to remain in Ireland, destitute, if they were to take a case. It is not clear if an employee would have an entitlement to change employer in the circumstances to which I refer.

There are a number of workers who may only discover that their employers do not have permits for them when this legislation comes into force. The employee may have been in the country for as long as three years, believing the employer has a permit, because the employer may have received the first permit but not the second or third. We expect that something will be done to recognise this on Committee Stage. Where an employer has behaved in this manner, people should be treated fairly and allowed to remain working in Ireland. Mr. Jennings will explain our concerns about features of the employment permits as envisaged in the legislation.

Mr. Mike Jennings

I echo Ms Lynch's gratitude to the committee and her point on the reception we receive from officials at all levels. Our discussion this afternoon refers to political decisions with which we have major difficulties. The Bill is a major disappointment to the trade union movement. Unless it is substantially amended on Committee Stage, it will represent a major missed opportunity that will not be available again soon. I hope the members will read the ICTU submission in its entirety because it contains many recommendations that we do not have time to discuss now.

If the Bill is enacted, it will codify in law, rather than removing, the two-tier system. As a result, there will be a differentiation between two sets of workers from outside the European economic area, EEA. Based on so-called higher skills and, in the case of the Bill, specified wage rates, some workers will have different conditions of employment and security than others, including the right to bring family members to join them in this country. Workers are deemed to be in higher skills occupations for no reason other than that they are on higher rates of pay. As a trade union movement committed to egalitarianism, we find that objectionable and unnecessary. It should be possible to devise a system without such differentiation to respond to the universally recognised need for immigrant labour in the Irish economy in the coming years.

The differentiation occurs where the Bill specifies that certain people will be given work permits and others will be given a so-called green card. As an aside, the repeated use of the phrase "green card" in public statements by the Minister is a misnomer. I had occasion to speak with Mr. Bruce Morrison, the former US Congressman whose name is associated with the phrase "green card". Above anyone else, Mr. Morrison qualifies as the person entitled to ownership of that phrase. I asked him if he was annoyed with the description of the provisions as green card and he told me he was offended by it.

Nobody associated with emigrant law in the United States would recognise this as a green card. The phrase "green card" implies permanence and a right to plan one's position in the host country to which one has come. The most generous terms of this Bill, which are described as green card, do not give that security. That description is designed to hitch this proposal in the minds of the public with progressive elements of legislation for which Irish politicians lobbied in the United States, without delivering progressive benefits.

The second major difficulty we have with the Bill is with regard to ownership of the work permit. The Bill states that a work permit will be in the hands of the employee. In reality, the employee will have the documentation but the permit itself and all of the attendant entitlements, responsibilities and power will remain 100% vested in the employer. In essence, the employer will still hold the work permit. The immigrant worker will have possession of the documentation, which is not insignificant because it is a generous and much needed provision. It will help immigrant workers track the veracity of promises made by employers that their work permits are in order. We found that many workers fell into the black economy because their employers mislead them on non-renewal of work permits. Possessing a copy of the documentation is an advantage but should not be regarded as the same as having ownership of the work permit. The former President, Mary Robinson, described the system as bonded labour and many aspects of bonded labour will still attach to it. Renewal will still be in the hands of the employer and a person's security of employment will entirely rest on a job offer from the employer.

Ms Lynch referred to the insecurity workers suffer because of the continued denial of social welfare provisions. Although this matter is not provided for in the Bill, it must be seen in context. I do not know anybody who would defend a situation of continually seeking to undermine hard-won pay rates and conditions of employment in the name of competitiveness. If that is to be avoided, the employer must agree to pay not only the national minimum wage but the recognised going rate for that job as a condition of granting work permits. This country has well-established mechanisms, such as good dialogue between the social partners — employers, unions and Government — regardless of the current threat to national partnership. It would not be difficult to convene a tripartite body to advise the Minister on the going rate for any job category. That, and not the national minimum wage — which would only contribute to a race to lower rates, etc. — should be the rate on the work permit.

It is intended that the Bill we are discussing will be enacted into law. It must be stated that if the level of non-enforcement continues, all of the debate and time invested by parliamentarians working hard in the Dáil and by ourselves in the trade union movement will be for nothing because the new system will only exist on paper. We have seen the rights and benefits that workers are supposed to enjoy being ignored and trampled upon. Legislation is simply not enforced enough and we must reiterate that point.

Mr. David Begg, the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, referred to the light touch adopted by the Government with regard to implementation of employee safeguards. That was a euphemistic phrase because the Government's approach is almost hands-off in nature. I hope the committee, which possesses expertise that I do not, will see that the Bill contains a provision to correct that level of non-enforcement which discredits the best of legislation.

In a detailed and well-thought-out report earlier this year, the labour inspectorate, charged with policing and enforcing this legislation, specified it could not carry out its functions unless its numbers were increased to at least 40 or 50 inspectors. The most recent improvement announced by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment only increases its number to 33. The Minister has proposed an increase of approximately 50% of what is necessary according to the inspectorate, which does not have an axe to grind on this issue. It must be a cause for concern because it is pointless for the Oireachtas to spend time on legislation that will not be enforced.

Deputy Lynch

I thank Ms Lynch, Mr. Keogh and Mr. Jennings, not only for coming before the committee and making presentations but also for lobbying every member of both Houses. It is correct to state that if we took this as the template for what should be in the Employment Permits Bill, we would have better legislation. It came as a major shock to all of us — including members of Government parties — when we discovered that the Bill would not transfer the employment permit from the employer to the worker. The legislation includes some safeguards that were not previously in place. However, it is clearly not what we expected to be produced after the scandals of GAMA and local situations of which we are all aware. Ms Lynch is correct to state that the Bill does as much damage to good employers as it does to the workers. We all know people who want to employ people from abroad at the going rate for the job, to treat them fairly and to allow them the benefits that accrue from working in an economy such as ours.

Some questions immediately spring to mind. Mr. Jennings already answered the question on the number of inspectors required. The number of 33 envisaged in the legislation is not enough. It is less than a light touch because it is not possible to police a building industry the size of which exists in Ireland. Whether the building industry should be that size is a different argument entirely. We could all suffer if it goes belly up. Let us hope it does not. One cannot blame inspectors for not doing their jobs, when anyone involved in the industry knows that adequate inspection is simply not possible with that level of staffing.

I have a major problem with the categorisation of workers. It worries me greatly. I know that the categorisation is not, as yet, definite because the working group has not finalised the matter. However, I would hate to think that we would have one category of workers in the country who have the right of access, residency, the right to bring family members here, the potential to become citizens and another category of workers who do not. That is something of which we must be conscious and about which we must be careful. We must make noises about this issue now, rather than waiting until the working group publishes its recommendations.

Representatives from the chambers of commerce came before this committee last week and we discussed the categorisation issue. It is interesting that their position on the matter is not dissimilar to that of ICTU. The two bodies are not a million miles apart in terms of their views. Their presentation was not as comprehensive as the documents before us today but their position was surprisingly close to that of ICTU. The representatives spoke of the need for people to be given the incentive of citizenship, as well as general worker rights, the right to live with their families and so forth.

We should look at the situation in Germany in this context. What we are planning to do here is what Germany did to Turkish immigrants. Turks were invited into the country but when there was a downturn in the economy, the Germans attempted to get rid of the Turks. However, the German Supreme Court declared that such action was not legal. I have a terrible feeling that we will take a similar path here and that worries me.

I am sure that The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland would have no difficulty in passing the submission it made to this committee on to ICTU. There are few areas on which the two organisations would disagree. I was surprised by their submission and said as much at the time. The categorisation of workers is wrong. The proposed new work permit is not a green card, it is an entirely different animal. However, we should be talking about introducing a proper green card system.

Deputy Callanan

There are some workers here who may not have their permits updated. There are others who never had a permit at all. What would ICTU suggest should be done with such workers? Would it advocate an amnesty?

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

I welcome the ICTU delegation. My question does not specifically relate to the document presented here but rather to the more general area of trade unionism and working. What tax concessions are available to people who come into this country and join the workforce vis-à-vis those available to Irish workers? For example, I was told by an Irish bricklayer recently that he is earning €1.10 for laying bricks but that Polish bricklayers can lay bricks for 80 cent each. He told me that their price was based on a tax concession, due to the fact that they are resident here. If such a situation starts to erupt all over the country, it will create great difficulties for our native workforce.

We have seen that outsourcing, as is the case with Irish Ferries, is now the name of the game. Mr. Jennings attended a meeting in my local area on the Dairygold issue, which is also about outsourcing. A total of 1,200 people in north Cork were thrown on to the rubbish heap. A number of them received golden handshakes to soften the blow but many did not. That is not the way to treat people in the workforce who have given continuous service. I come from the private sector but I still believe that it is horrific behaviour. I was delighted to see the Taoiseach coming to the rescue of the Irish Ferries workers but it is a pity he did not come to the rescue of the 1,200 people in north Cork, who were thrown out of their jobs overnight. This entire area is becoming a minefield and will cause much trouble in the future. Should anything happen to the Irish economy, I do not know what native workers will do. Their jobs will move to other areas and cheaper workers will undermine them here.

Does ICTU know of the tax concession to which I referred earlier? I know there is a tax concession available to Irishmen who have worked abroad for ten years and then return here. What is the situation for immigrants?

At the end of the day, this is all about workers' rights. The party I represent has always been fair to the working people on this island and we should never lose that position. We are neither on the left nor the right. We have always been in the middle and are a party with no ideology. We are honest people. However, I am very annoyed about the way the people of north Cork were treated and were left to fight the battle with Dairygold on their own.

Mr. Jennings

As a trade union official, I spend most of my time having rows with employers but I seize any opportunity that presents itself, in terms of us singing from the same hymn sheet, because it makes a pleasant change. I have seen statements from the Chambers of Commerce in Ireland and Deputy Lynch is right in asserting that there is little that divides ICTU and that body. Good employers recognise that they are just as threatened by the race to the bottom because they will have no choice but to become bad employers or go out of business. That is a dilemma that no good employer wants to face. I am sure Winston Churchill is not referred to very often in this forum but he spoke of the disadvantage of being a gentleman when one's opponent has the advantage of being a cad. One of the purposes of good legislation is to ensure that the cads do not have the advantage. It is in the interests of good employers, the trade union movement and workers that the Government gets the proposed legislation right.

I am pleased to hear Deputy Lynch objecting to the categorisation of workers. As egalitarians, we also find it supremely objectionable that, in a republic, we would favour one category of workers over another. The German experience, whereby they introduced the Gastarbeiter, or guest worker, system for immigrants from Turkey is interesting. A phrase that was used was "we asked for workers and we got people". We must also realise that human beings come to Ireland to work, just as the Irish were human beings when they went to Liverpool, Boston and so forth. We must treat people as human beings first and foremost. If we think we can simply turn off the migration tap, we will find, as the Germans did, that it cannot be done. We must, therefore, treat immigrants well. There are nightly riots in Paris, France, at present because of the way immigrant workers were treated there. That is not a road this country ever wants to go down. We have a chance to get it right now and we should do so.

Deputy Callanan asked about an amnesty. That word is often thrown around and, in fact, we had discussions with officials in the Department this morning, where this topic came up. ICTU is not calling for a blanket amnesty because that would call into question the integrity of our laws. Blanket amnesties can make people feel that it is only a matter of time before the law is put to one side to allow them to escape the consequences of having breached it.

Many workers, through no fault of their own, were, however, tricked into a situation where they have become illegal, or undocumented, workers. In that context, it is right that we should put in place, in negotiation with the social partners, a programme to regularise their position rather than doing so on the basis of a blanket amnesty. We should regularise such workers in a negotiated way that employers, unions and the workers concerned believe is fair. It is interesting that the Deputy raised this matter, given that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is in Washington lobbying on behalf of undocumented Irish workers in the United States. Without opting for amnesties or other blanket measures, there is a great deal that could be done, with the agreement of all the social partners, to regularise the position for those who have not deliberately breached any laws but who have found themselves, through no fault of their own, outside the white economy.

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe referred to tax concessions. I must defer to Ms Lynch on that question. Suffice it to say, however, that there is a different tax system operating for native and non-native workers. It became apparent during the GAMA Construction debate that there are different rules available, depending on the small print in various Finance Acts, with regard to the host country and the actual named place of residence of the worker. If people have good enough lawyers, they can find ways to give themselves an unfair advantage. Deputy Ned O'Keeffe's informant may have been discussing unfair advantages that were gained by one party. Ms Lynch may have more information and, if we cannot supply a full answer, we will revert to the Deputy on the matter.

It may be premature to say that the Taoiseach has rescued the Irish Ferries workers. There will be a large demonstration tomorrow on that issue.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

The Taoiseach came to the rescue and was the first to stand up to defend them. I admire him for doing so. My complaint is that people in my part of the country are not being defended. The jury is out in terms of those events.

Mr. Jennings

We welcome the Taoiseach's statement with regard to ongoing events in Irish Ferries and are pleased that he shares our outrage. I become nervous when I hear a message from those in power to the effect that a matter is complicated. A solution to this problem remains distant. While I am not calling into question the Taoiseach's bona fides, I would prefer it if he had told me the problem was solved. Unfortunately, we are not yet able to say that the issues relating to the Irish Ferries workers have been addressed.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

Outsourcing is one of the challenges being faced in this area. I am worried that this country's economy will not always be as buoyant as it is at present. What will happen to native workers when their jobs have been outsourced for the sake of lower costs?

Mr. Jennings

Outsourcing is probably the greatest threat to the Irish economy at present. It is interesting that an Irishman is now European Commissioner with responsibility for this area. The services directive, if introduced in the form that it is rumoured to have taken, will bring outsourcing to a level that no one could imagine possible. There will be no employment security in this country if such a level of outsourcing proceeds.

Ms Lynch

I concur with Deputy Lynch on the issue of what the Government has in mind when legislating to revoke permits. After what period will the provisions elapse? Will it mean that we will revoke the permit of a worker who comes to Ireland, falls in love and starts a family here? Will we hold the threat of revoking permits over the heads of people who come here with their families and whose children attend schools? Are we comfortable that such a world may be created? As Deputy Lynch noted, such a system exists in Germany but it has never been a feature of Irish society. I draw members' attention to that provision, which sneaks through the legislation. We should be concerned that these laws may be introduced. No safeguards have been introduced, such as the right of a deportee to sell his or her house before expulsion. We should pause before we legislate for matters that could have harsh effects on people.

Perhaps outsourcing should be identified as unfair competition because if we do not guarantee standards and exclude rogues, the situation that Deputy Ned O'Keeffe fears will transpire. If the only wage recognised in this Bill is the minimum one, it will be an invitation to unfair competition. It is great to hear the Deputy express his support for us, although we appear to be arguing over the matter.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We are coming to that.

Ms Lynch

Perhaps we are arguing because we agree on unfair competition. People often ask us why we are calling for an amnesty but we have never done so. We have to accept that, because of the manner in which the system was constructed, some people in Ireland genuinely believe their employers have permits for them. Many thousands have to take their employer's word that a permit has been applied for. It is unfair in such circumstances that the employee is deported. A bridging mechanism is needed for such cases.

If we worked together, we could probably devise a workable system. We must try to find a system that recognises the circumstances in which people find themselves. If we are to fight undocumented employment, we should not hand employers the ability to threaten staff with deportation. That will not help us in the fight against this problem. On the other hand, it is unfair to provide an amnesty every three years. We should be able to introduce a law that is just and fair to everybody concerned.

With regard to the point on tax breaks, I am disappointed that our economist, Mr. Paul Sweeney, is not present because he could speak to that issue. The Deputy may be referring to the fact that the tax laws, in their application to residents and non-residents, differ. I will ask Mr. Sweeney to compose a detailed reply on the matter. It occurs to me that this matter couldrepresent another difference in treatment.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

On a point of information, Mr. Sweeney attended the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service last week.

I was told by a bricklayer that he received €1.25 per brick laid but that a Polish worker was receiving 85 cent. Upon investigation, my informant found that tax breaks played a role in the matter. He said that the construction industry is becoming a difficult area for native craft workers.

Ms Lynch

If the Deputy concurs, I would like to revert to the committee with a written reply to the question.

Chairman

With regard to accommodation for employees, I encountered situations where 20 or 30 immigrants employed in a factory share a large house rented or owned by the employer and are brought to and from work by minibus. The impression may be given in such a situation that the employer owns the workers lock, stock and barrel. I would like to hear ICTU's views on this issue.

Deputy P. Breen

I apologise for the absence of my colleagues, Deputy Hogan and Senator Coghlan, who are attending Question Time in the Dáil and the Order of Business in the Seanad, respectively. I also apologise for my late arrival, which was due to my participation in a local radio interview. I welcome the delegation, which has supplied a comprehensive document with suggestions that should be considered on Committee Stage.

I concur with Deputy Lynch on the issue of inspectors, 33 of whom are obliged to cover the entire country. Has the ban on recruitment to the public service had an effect on this issue and should more inspectors be hired? As Deputy Lynch noted, we are living in a construction jungle and an estimated 420,000 non-nationals workers will be required by 2010. Up to 1 million non-nationals may be needed to complete work on the transport plan within the timeframe announced yesterday.

Deputy N. O’Keeffe

We will guarantee that.

Deputy P. Breen

The work will certainly not be completed before the next election.

The provision in respect of the right of employers to retain permit applications is unwelcome.

Will the fact that employers will be obliged to issue annual permits to people put pressure on workers? An employee could go to another employer and ask for a permit but the latter might not like him or her and decide not to provide a good reference. Is there a weakness in the Bill in this regard? The system involves a great deal of bureaucracy over the course of a year. I concur with other speakers that it is not a green card system. Many people considering coming here in the future will choose to go elsewhere, particularly if they cannot bring their spouses into the country. It will be a missed opportunity.

Senator Hanafin

I welcome the representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I am sure Ms Lynch, Mr. Keogh and Mr. Jennings do not realise I am the ICTU nominee to the Labour panel, the ICTU Senator, as it were. We are ad idem with much of what ICTU has said. We are all working toward the same goal and social partnership has been part of that. ICTU represents migrant workers at social partnership level and we all want to see fair play. People do not realise the value added by migrant workers. One hears complaints about them but these are unfair because such workers have contributed hugely to the economy. There are sectors that would not be competitive without them so we should initiate a programme of education, stating the facts of their value to us.

Ms Lynch

I will take the Chairman's question on accommodation and Mr. Jennings will answer others.

The Chairman is correct about accommodation. Mr. Jennings and I are working on a programme on the rights of domestic workers in Ireland. They are some of the most vulnerable employees. The Bill states that, with agreement, one can charge whatever one wishes in respect of accommodation. It does not fix or impose a ceiling on rates. That gives cause for concern because a person will not know before they arrive what represents a fair amount. We have published our view of what constitutes fair rates for accommodation. There are such rates already in other areas such as, for example, in the hotel and catering sector. This Bill should set out a fair amount to charge.

I am concerned about workers I have met whose employers exercise inappropriate control over them by transporting them between their places of employment and their homes, which those employers own. It is difficult in those circumstances to stand up for their rights and object to their treatment. We cannot be confident that somebody in such a position can do so. Our system relies on people being able to stand up for their rights and exercise their right to leave if they are treated badly. The minimum notice for somebody who has just arrived here to work is one week. If a person's place of employment is also the house in which he or she lives, is one week's notice fair? It is necessary to regulate the accommodation system to give confidence to people in those circumstances.

Mr. Jennings

The Chairman raised the issue of accommodation. We dealt with a meat company in the midlands, which shall remain nameless, where 18 young men from Egypt lived in one three-bedroom house. It was so cramped that one man was sleeping in the hot press. Last week we dealt with a company in County Kilkenny where the employer was about to sack a group of immigrant workers who were living in company-owned accommodation. The employer felt that, ipso facto, he was entitled to evict them that night. I advised the official to bring one of the immigrants to the Garda station to tell gardaí that he had a legal right to his accommodation until a court order was issued to evict him. He was to inform the gardaí that if the employer evicted him, it was the intention of the union, if necessary, to gain access to the accommodation using reasonable force. When that was brought to the attention of the employer he realised he did not have the legal right to evict somebody simply because he had dismissed that person, fairly or unfairly. A person’s right to accommodation is governed not by labour law but by legislation governing eviction. This echoes Senator Hanafin’s point about education because people are not aware of that. A great deal of exploitation takes place in the guise of providing accommodation. We dealt with a group of agency workers in one of the main Dublin hospitals. There were six of them in a suburban house, each paying €60 per week for heat and light. That was clearly a scam to undercut the wages they were being paid. I am glad the Chairman raised this issue.

Chairman

In many cases, accommodation is located in isolated areas, five or ten miles from a town, and it is accommodation that nobody else would rent. I have also come across situations where rent is deducted from gross pay. Is that legal?

Mr. Jennings

An employer is precluded from making any deductions, other than those relating to PAYE and PRSI, from an employee's pay. The employee must sign a release form for any other deduction. Provided he signs for it, it is not illegal. However, the Chairman is correct that abuse takes place. The Chairman and I might know what is the going rate for accommodation in Dublin, Cork or Tullamore but an immigrant worker is easily misled and, having been told that the rate is two, three or four times the going rate, unwittingly signs for it. We are instantly suspicious when we hear of employees living in accommodation owned by their employers because that puts them in a double bind.

The Chairman is correct about the physical isolation of such workers. They are often collected by minibus early in the morning and taken back by minibus late in the evening. There was a case in County Kildare during what we used to call the Emergency when a worker from eastern Europe was working for six months on the bogs on a Bord Na Móna scheme before he realised he was not actually in America. Often immigrant workers do not know what country they are in because they are kept completely separate from their compatriots by being brought to and from their place of work. The potential for abuse is huge. These people have rights under legislation governing eviction but knowledge and enforcement of rights are other matters.

The ban on recruitment, raised by Deputy Pat Breen, is not an issue. It is a political problem involving the inspectorate. During the course of negotiations on the current national agreement, Sustaining Progress, agreement for 25 additional labour inspectors was reached with the social partners, the Government and employers and endorsed by officials from the Department of Finance, with the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, standing in for the Taoiseach. That decision was vetoed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and only four additional inspectors were appointed, despite the fact that there was no impediment under Civil Service recruitment rules. There is no political reason 20 additional inspectors could not have been appointed or the number be brought up to 75, the correct level according to the congress. The inspectors see the correct level as 50. The Civil Service recruitment embargo was waived and is not an impediment in this case.

If we gain a reputation for treating workers in this fashion, they will vote with their feet. It is important to realise that we are in a phase of transition because, after May 2004, only three of the then 15 EU countries — Ireland, the UK and Sweden — agreed to open their labour markets to immigrant workers from new eastern European member states. During the seven years from May 2004, all of the other EU countries must do likewise. What Polish worker will come all the way to Ireland when he or she could get a job in Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark or elsewhere? Such workers will certainly not come here if Ireland continues to have a reputation for exploitation that some bad employers give it. We may in future look back with nostalgia on the days when workers came to this country, wondering what we did to drive them out. We will be worse off because of this.

With regard to Senator Hanafin's point, there is a large area of misrepresentation of migrant workers, with ideas that they are coming to take our jobs or scrounge social welfare. There is not enough action by progressive people and relevant Departments to provide the educational message that we need the workers to come here to benefit the economy. The advantages of the workers coming here should be indicated. Any education programme is welcome and sorely needed.

Chairman

As there are no more questions, I thank Ms Lynch, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Cole for contributing to an interesting discussion. It will doubtlessly be of assistance to us on Committee Stage of the Employment Permits Bill 2005.

Deputy Lynch

Deputy Howlin did not ask me to tender his apologies but when we discussed the matter last week, he stated that he was looking forward to the visit of the witnesses. He clearly did not make it and I apologise on his behalf.

Mr. Jennings

I met Deputy Howlin and he did not realise the meeting was taking place this afternoon.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 November 2005.