I am a community development worker with Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. The centre is a national rights based organisation that has worked with workers and their families since 2001. Through our daily work with migrant workers we have formed an analysis and insight into some of the issues facing them and their families here. Many of these issues obtained in the past in respect of the work permit system. Therefore, we welcome this opportunity to contribute to Committee Stage amendments on this Bill.
On first reading of the Bill, we welcome many of its elements, for example, the fact that it is now illegal for employers to withhold documents — such as a passport — belonging to an employee. We also welcome that the worker is entitled to hold the work permit. On our initial reading of the Bill, we were concerned, especially in the context of the green card spin in the media, that it was just putting into legislation what was already in place, namely, the work permit and work visa systems, with very different rights and entitlements afforded under both categories.
Members have all received a submission from the Migrant Rights Centre on the Bill. Due to the time constraints, I will not go through the submission. I will, however, highlight two issues and Ms Dubyna will highlight a further one.
The first issue for us is the length of time covered by a visa. From our initial reading of section 7(5)(a), we understood that the work permit would be issued for a period of one year, while a work visa would be issued for a period of two years. This was a matter of concern. However, in his contribution on Second Stage and in a letter we received from him recently, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment stated that work permits may be granted for a period of two years and then, on renewal, for a further period of three years. The Migrant Rights Centre would welcome this provision in the Bill. It makes sense for migrant workers and for the administrators involved and I am sure the officials in the Department would welcome it.
We feel the two-year period makes more sense. It brings the work permit more into line with the work visa, a welcome initiative, and offers stability for migrant workers. If their work permits are for two years, it is easier for them to plan for the future, apply for loans, etc. It also makes bureaucratic sense. Much information is required from an employer applying for a work permit and if the permit is for two years, it makes the process a little easier to undertake. As has been seen from the experience of other European countries, when the process is complicated, employers sometimes have a tendency not to bother applying for the work permit when it is for a short period. The two-year period will add more stability. We would like to see this provision made secure through an amendment to section 7(5)(a).
The second issue of concern relates to supporting migrant workers who change employer, especially those who have been made redundant or who have been exploited in their first place of employment. The experience of the Migrant Rights Centre is that the majority of undocumented migrant workers have come into the country on valid work permits for one year. Often, through no fault of their own, they become undocumented because either the employment relationship has broken down or they have been made redundant. They have extreme difficulties accessing new employment and fall out of the system. We have also found that when a migrant worker becomes undocumented, exploitation is more likely to occur.
Our concern is to support migrant workers in the transition period if they must leave their first job. I know they have their work permits in their hands but we have a question in this regard. Who applies for the work permit? In the letter we received and in his Second Stage contribution, the Minister stated that the work permits may be granted on application from either the employer or the employee. This is our understanding but we have not seen it in the Bill. We would welcome this provision because if the employee has the power to apply for the work permit, this would go a long way towards combating exploitation. We ask that this be made more explicit in the Bill because currently it is not explicit.
We hope the fee of €500 could be waived in situations where a migrant worker who has been made redundant or exploited is trying to access a new employer. Sometimes the fee is a deterrent to an employer who might otherwise be willing to take a person on.
I will conclude on that point because I know Ms Dubyna will raise the other issue of concern on the Bill. Our basic premise is that we would like the work permit and work visa to be brought more in line so that there is not a huge discrepancy between rights afforded to migrant workers on work visas or work permits. Such a discrepancy does not bode well for integration. In our experience, it is in these circumstances that migrant workers become excluded. However, they are the people in the lower paid and less stable sectors of our economy who have been driving our economy and growth in the past five to ten years. I thank the committee for its time.
