The first item on the agenda is a presentation by the Immigrant Council of Ireland. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Ms Catherine Cosgrave, acting CEO of the Immigrant Council of Ireland. I draw her attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The format for the meeting is simple. Ms Cosgrave will make her presentation, after which questions will be taken from members.
Immigrant Council of Ireland: Presentation.
Ms Catherine Cosgrave
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear and members for attending and their time. I am the acting chief executive of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, ICI. I am also the legal officer for that organisation.
For those not familiar with the Immigrant Council of Ireland, I will begin with an introduction to the work of the organisation. I intend to keep my presentation short and informal because, due to reasons such as annual leave, I do not have a formal presentation. I welcome the opportunity to answer questions afterwards.
The first matter is the ICI's consideration of the report on migration produced by this committee and published in April. I refer to the report on migration and an initial assessment on the position of European Union migrant workers in Ireland post-2004. I will then briefly identify the issues arising for the Immigrant Council of Ireland in its information and legal services since EU accession of ten countries in 2004. I will conclude by flagging some of the potential issues the council believes might be forthcoming with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland is a non-governmental organisation that seeks to address the emerging needs of migrants in Ireland by providing information and advice on a wide range of immigration issues through its information and support services and a specialised legal advice service, which it operates on a free basis. Since we opened in 2002 and up to last year, the council has responded to more than 12,500 queries from individuals, organisations and other legal practitioners on immigration matters. In addition to these direct support services that we provide for migrants, we also promote the rights of migrants to advocacy, lobbying and campaigning work. We have undertaken research on a number of issues that reflect the migrant experience in Ireland. We produced a handbook on rights and entitlements to assist legal practitioners and migrants to negotiate the legal process here.
More substantive policy work relates to labour migration as it applies generally to all migrants in Ireland, not just to EU nationals. We have also published research on the voices of immigrants, reflecting their experiences of migrating to Ireland. Our most recent publication in June dealt with migrants' experiences of family reunification in Ireland and also included the experience of EU nationals and their family members, which I will touch upon briefly in the presentation because it is specifically relevant to some of the work the committee will be considering.
That summarises the organisation in a nutshell. I will now deal with some of the recommendations included in the report of this committee. The Immigrant Council of Ireland welcomes the committee's acknowledgement of the importance of migration as an issue facing the European Union and for prioritising migration within its programme of work. I also welcome the timely nature of the publication of the report in light of the changes occurring at this time, most recently the decision yesterday, and also its contribution to the wider issues of immigration and integration that we are currently considering, specifically with the introduction this year of the employment permits legislation and also the forthcoming immigration and residence legislation, the scheme of which was recently outlined.
I take this opportunity to endorse a number of the recommendations the committee made in its report, specifically its first recommendation regarding the essential need for some cross-cutting interdepartmental mechanism to co-ordinate the work of Government in respect of migration. We welcome this finding, given that since its establishment the Immigrant Council of Ireland has called for such a mechanism to be introduced. To this end, the council has commissioned research on the nature and form that a cross-cutting mechanism should take. We hope that will be available by November and we would be delighted to share the findings of that research with the committee. At this preliminary stage, I wish to flag that, to date, the council has called for an office to be established in the Department of the Taoiseach along the lines of the Office of the Minister for Children, which we believe has proved particularly effective in that regard. This may be a model that could be used in the sphere of immigration. We reserve our position awaiting the findings of the comprehensive research that will consider international models and make recommendations as to what might be most appropriate in the context of Ireland.
The Immigrant Council of Ireland endorses the committee's recommendation on data collection. In our experience, very little reliable or accurate information is available regarding immigrants, whether EU or non-EU, in Ireland. This essential gap must be remedied if we are to make effective, evidence-based policy recommendations and policies in the future. A third recommendation we endorse is the need for an improved labour inspectorate and enforcement of existing labour standards. In this regard we flag the importance for this committee and all of us to monitor the implementation of the Employment Permits Act 2006 when it commences, in particular the provisions regarding sanctions. The council is concerned that it is not sufficient to have legislative provision for sanctions without effective mechanisms for enforcing breaches of the legislation. There is no doubt that there have been problems with the enforcement of existing labour standards in the labour market. We flag a concern in this regard.
We also endorse the committee's recommendation to undertake a study on the feasibility of providing drop-in centres or establishing a network of such centres for migrants. However, the Immigrant Council of Ireland hopes the committee will take cognisance of the fact that those already operating and providing essential services for migrants are grossly under-resourced. We highlight that organisations such as the council, the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland and Nasc in Cork currently operate in the absence of any Government funding. There is no dedicated funding line available through any Department to fund the services of those centres. Someone undertaking a study would need to bear in mind the need to have the resources in place to adequately fund any series of network centres or to fund existing services that already provide essential information to migrants. That is a brief overview of the recommendations we endorse.
I wish to highlight some of the issues that have arisen in the information and support services of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, in the information and drop-in centre and the legal services. We operate a drop-in centre, a telephone helpline and an e-mail service that responds to queries received within Ireland and from overseas. It is clear that there is still a considerable lack of pre-departure information available to migrants who wish to travel overseas and avail of their EU treaty rights. For example, we routinely receive e-mails from, for example, EU citizens inquiring whether they are entitled to come to Ireland. They are completely unaware that they are EU citizens and have certain privileges such as freedom of movement in the EU, whether to Ireland or to other countries. Citizens from the ten accession countries of 2004 are not entitled to go to all the other EU countries, which might explain some of the confusion. It is striking that people are generally unaware of their entitlements within the European Union, which we all need to consider in terms of the information available through other institutions such as the European Commission, etc.
Another issue that presents in our services relates directly to the rights and entitlements of EU nationals. In this regard two points are worth flagging. Regarding the rights and entitlements of EU nationals to work, there has been some evidence in our services that there is some level of exploitation of EU nationals, which relates back to the point I made regarding the provision of sanctions in legislation. It is meaningless to have sanctions without any effective remedy for enforcing breaches of legislation. There are a number of obvious ways in which the rights and entitlements of EU nationals can be best protected. That is, of course, through the provision of information to ensure they are fully aware of their rights and entitlements, in particular their basic right to a minimum wage, etc. They also need to be aware of the mechanisms in place which give them access to an effective remedy. Some of the nationals accessing our service are unaware that existing labour law here protects them in the same way that protections are afforded to Irish citizens. There is a need for information and for appropriate legal services to be made available. In that context, the committee could have regard to the provision of legal aid to members of society generally, particularly to those without means who need access to effective remedies. I refer not only to immigration law difficulties but also to generalised legal services.
The ICI also has concerns about the right and entitlement of EU citizens to be joined in Ireland by family members who are not EU citizens. Despite the well established fact that EU nationals have the right to be joined in Ireland by their family members, a significant number of refusals have been made in respect of visa applications by family members to come to Ireland. Significant delays have occurred in the processing of applications and it can take upwards of two years in some cases for an initial visa decision, followed by an extended appeals process in the event of a refusal. The only effective means of addressing what, in many cases, is a simple bureaucratic error has been to take expensive and time-consuming legal action through the courts. Serious bureaucratic problems have arisen in the processing of family reunification applications, not to mention the issue of the fundamental denial of family life. Not only is this problem being raised by clients of ICI but an increasing number of complaints are being made to the European Commission's office in Dublin.
The committee's report recognises the problems that have arisen with regard to the habitual residence condition and the introduction of social welfare restrictions on workers from the new EU member states. We note the concerns of the committee regarding the impact of habitual residence clauses on EU citizens but draw members' attention to the fact that the content of the report was inaccurate at the time of its publication. The report implies that EEA nationals must still satisfy the habitual residence condition for child benefits but that requirement was changed in November 2005 by the Department of Social and Family Affairs on foot of a legal challenge by the European Commission. Child benefits and one-family payments for EEA nationals have been deemed family payments and are, therefore, exempt from the habitual residence condition. EEA nationals may also access supplementary welfare payments if they can provide evidence of a work history in this State. The committee's report is accurate in so far as it acknowledges the degree of inconsistency among community welfare officers in assessing applications.
The habitual residence condition has had a negative impact on the welfare of some migrants who were unsuccessful in seeking employment in Ireland. While only a small number of people have sought assistance from the ICI in that regard, we are aware of the concerns expressed by other agencies regarding the level of homelessness among newly arrived migrants and the availability of appropriate services. Given the forthcoming accession of Romania and Bulgaria, we need to consider this issue with a view to ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are put in place if freedom of movement for work purposes is granted to nationals of those countries. Appropriate support services are needed if we are to prevent a recurrence of the dire cases that came to our attention in the past, such as the unfortunate woman in Northern Ireland who became extremely ill.
Reports have been received through our services of racism against recently arrived EU citizens. We have concerns about the negative stereotyping of EU citizens who come here for work purposes, which implies, for example, that they are here to avail of social welfare. Every organisation, whether NGO or State agency, should take leadership on this issue by providing accurate data to the public and avoiding such negative stereotyping.
Mindful of these experiences, I will describe some of the issues that could potentially arise with regard to the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania and address, in particular, the question of whether nationals of those states will be given the right to work in Ireland. It is not going too far to speculate that the experiences of our services in the past two years will be mirrored in respect of citizens from the two new member states. There is a need for appropriate pre-departure and post-arrival information on issues such as the cost of living and access to legal employment. We must also be mindful of Ireland's obligation as an EU member state to ensure that the rights and entitlements of EU nationals and their family members are protected and respected.
The fundamental question that arises with regard to Bulgaria and Romania is whether citizens of those countries will have the right to work throughout the European Union. Speculation has already taken place about the Government's decision on this question. The key factor in that decision should be the evidence or otherwise of displacement of Irish workers and social welfare tourism among the migrant population. In this regard, the ICI would remind people that Ireland has long benefited from the freedom of movement which is considered fundamental to citizenship of the European Union. These benefits have accrued to Ireland, as a nation of emigrants, in addition to its being a destination country for migrants.
The media has given extensive attention to the question of whether Irish workers have been displaced by the recent influx of migrant workers but I wish to sound a note of caution in this regard. The ICI acknowledges that there is some anecdotal evidence of displacement within the workplace. However, evidence-based policies are needed when a fundamental decision such as the right of EU citizens to work in Ireland is being taken. It is the view of the ICI that no evidence exists to indicate that displacement occurred following the last round of accessions. The evidence to date comes from objective reports such as the ESRI's investigation into the impact of immigration on the labour market and data from the live register. During this period other agencies, with more economic expertise than I possess, categorically stated that there is no evidence of displacement. In addition, the live register of unemployment has fallen throughout that time.
Based on those two fundamental factors, there is need for caution when stating that there has been displacement. I prefer to rely on the words of other people who have said that perhaps the discussion we should have is about replacement of Irish workers in particular sectors and that it is not actually displacement entirely from the labour market. We must be aware of this.
We should also be conscious of other considerations. If, for example, Ireland takes the decision, as it is entitled to do, to impose restrictions in the short term on workers from Bulgaria and Romania, there must be some consideration of what will be the likely outcome of that decision. There are already Bulgarian and Romanian workers in Ireland, so what will be their rights and entitlements? Will they continue to have restrictions imposed on them under the work permit system and other arrangements? What of those who exercise their freedom to move, if not their freedom to work?
There is anecdotal evidence from other EU countries where restrictions were imposed that nationals of those countries entered the labour market in an unregulated manner. We should be conscious of the consequences of that, particularly if we are concerned about maintaining employment standards and effective enforcement of existing labour legislation. The experience to date has been that those who are left out of the formal economy are the most vulnerable and the most open to exploitation. We should be aware of the negative impact on both our economy and society if there is a decision not to grant access to the formal labour market.
The Government is obviously entitled to take the decision it deems appropriate. It is the council's hope that the decision will be based on a rational assessment of existing evidence regarding the effects and impact on the economy in the past two years and that the decision will be influenced by such rational considerations and not by party political considerations in an election year.
The recommendations made by the committee to date — for example, with regard to the labour inspectorate or the need for a cross-cutting mechanism — will be extremely relevant in the context of the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania. There is a need for us to put in place the systems that will enable us to deal with and manage the changes we are encountering. I thank the committee for the opportunity to share these thoughts with members.
I thank Ms Cosgrave for her endorsement of some of the committee's recommendations in its report. I also thank her for pointing out our mistake. In recent weeks, the NESC, the ESRI and the Migrant Rights Centre have issued reports regarding migration. Many of the issues raised in those reports are similar to those Ms Cosgrave raised.
Everyone has focused on the issue of integration. Ms Cosgrave initially stated that she endorsed the key recommendation the committee made in its report in April, namely, that either a Department, Minister or a cross-departmental group should examine the area of migration and integration and deal with it centrally within the Government and that systems should be put in place to manage the change that is occurring in this country. In the opinion of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, is the situation getting worse or better? Is our manner of dealing with these issues becoming more of a mishmash?
Ms Cosgrave
It is difficult to give a yes or no answer. Considerable efforts have obviously been made on the part of a wide range of actors to get up to speed on the issues we are facing. I stand open to correction but perhaps the question the Chairman asks relates to the administration of immigration-related applications within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
That is part of it.
Ms Cosgrave
This change cannot happen overnight but must occur over a timeframe. Our concern would be — specifically in dealing with individuals on a daily basis — that there has been no significant improvement in the administration of applications during this period. As regards the specific remit of EU nationals, the only matter that would be relevant to the committee would be the administration of family reunification applications for EU family members. Much of the experience about which I am talking does not relate to EU nationals because they are largely not engaging with those particular structures. However, it is generally our experience that during this time there has been no significant improvement in terms of the administration of applications. There has been no significant improvement in accessibility in terms of individuals engaging with the system being aware of what they need to do to have an application processed, to what they are and are not entitled-----
Is it becoming more confused for immigrants to this country? The numbers are far bigger than they were previously and this year will see the largest number come here. Is it becoming more difficult for them when dealing with administration, bureaucracy and issues of homelessness, housing and information? Is it getting worse or better?
Ms Cosgrave
It depends on the specific aspect. There were some improvements in access to social welfare benefits. Initially, there was a hugely negative impact on migrants, particularly those who fell into dire situations. The review by the Department of Social and Family Affairs of the impact of the habitual residence condition was most welcome. It was carried out promptly and that should be commended. There are ongoing efforts by that Department to liaise with wider society to ensure it is appropriately monitored and the effects are dealt with.
As regards the administration of immigration-related applications, there has been little improvement. In fact, in some cases it has become worse. The timeframe for the processing of certain applications is off the wall. It is now taking approximately three years to process citizenship applications. There is a huge delay in the processing of family member applications for residence permits. In the case of family members of EU nationals, there is a legal obligation to process applications for residence permits within six months. However, it has reached the stage where, unfortunately, legal practitioners must access the courts due to a failure to comply with that obligation. This is a fundamental problem for the family members but there is also the wider consideration of cost to the State and potential exposure at Commission level. There are significant problems.
Does Ms Cosgrave believe it is an absolute priority that we begin centralising the administration of immigrant affairs at a high level?
Ms Cosgrave
Yes. I say that for reasons that go way beyond the actual processing of immigration-related applications. They will obviously remain to be processed in a central unit, whether it is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or whether it is given another name. That makes sense. One arm of government is responsible for dealing with economic policy and recruitment of labour migrants and so forth. Other Departments are responsible for assessing applications. That will likely always be the case.
However, to date there has been little co-ordination on the wider issues. Other relevant Departments, be it Health and Children or Enterprise, Trade and Employment, might not be familiar with the level of migration so they can strategically plan over ten, 15 or 20-year periods as to what services must be available. There have been significant problems with matters such as access to education or essential medical services. There is a lack of comprehension on the part of some service providers, although I do not mean this in a critical sense. Among migrants who present with their residence permits, there can often be a complete lack of comprehension as to who this person is, the nature of the information contained on the card and what it means. For example, there are different residence stamps and within that system there is a huge sub-division, so not everybody with the same stamp is even entitled to the same benefits. To make that clear, and put it in English, a stamp four holder in some cases has access to third level education but not in all cases. Therefore, there is a level of confusion among the service providers and Departments. More fundamentally, the individuals themselves do not have any clear understanding of what they are entitled to.
I will turn the discussion over to Senator Quinn and Deputy Allen but I have a suggestion for the committee. We could probably formally request a response to that core issue from the Taoiseach's office, if members agree.
Did Ms Cosgrave not say that she had some research coming out in November, which might be more definitive? It is obviously worthwhile to explore this issue and we have done a lot of work on it, but if Ms Cosgrave has something coming out in November I would like to see that research. She is talking about evidence-based decision-making which we do not have at the moment.
Can Ms Cosgrave provide us with an outline of what the report will deal with?
Ms Cosgrave
Yes, of course. It has only recently been commissioned but it is based on already long-standing thinking on the part of the council that there is a need for this cross-cutting mechanism. We are mindful of the fact that our organisation, together with many other organisations, has been calling for this. More recently, this committee's own report called for it and the Department of the Taoiseach indicated there was some interest in looking at this more fully. The question arose as to whether it should be a committee or a ministerial position. We have always advocated a ministerial position to give it adequate resources. The research itself fleshes that out much more and, for example, is looking at what is done in Sweden and the United Kingdom, and whether it should be done by a Ministry or by committees. We would be delighted to share that with the committee.
My suggestion was that we should write to the Taoiseach's office to find out if it had a response to the report's key recommendation.
Which report?
Our report.
The research being undertaken by the Immigrant Council of Ireland would be helpful, but Ms Cosgrave has not indicated what it is likely to contain or when it might be available. The comparisons with other EU member states, which show how we are measured against them, will be important. For example, whose responsibility does the council think it is to educate people from the new accession states about whatever country they will emigrate to? Is it is the responsibility of the EU to provide that education, the state to which they intend to emigrate, or the new member states? There are many issues involved. What is the ICI's research likely to contain? What does Ms Cosgrave expect to be in it that will be helpful?
I do not think we need to wait for that report because one of the key recommendations of the National Economic and Social Council's report published earlier this month regarding migration outside the EU was that there should be a "whole of Government" approach.
There is a reference here. All we will be doing is seeking a response.
That is all we are doing. It is not a political point.
No, it is not a political point.
The reason I am putting that rider on it is that obviously what emerges in November will take the debate further and will give us this evidence.
We can discuss it with the Department of the Taoiseach.
In fairness, Ms Cosgrave said that the major problem is the timeframe in which these decisions are being made. Where does the "whole of Government" approach solve that? There is a funding issue which concerns proper resourcing. It is not addressed by that issue. It is up to the committee. I am not going to try to apply strong arm tactics. We should wait until we have all the cards on the table and then make our formal approach.
Having listened to other speakers, I believe that all the cards will never be on the table. There will always be another card next month and the following month. There is little doubt that there is a lot contained in the NESC report. I have been impressed by Ms Cosgrave's articulate and competent way of explaining her council's concerns. I believe that the concerns weigh even more so on those of us who are not migrants. While we have 9% of migrants now the suggested figure is that it will be 18% by 2030. That needs action on behalf of this State for current residents.
One of the things that spurred our report was the fact that there was no central unit. At least there is now a Minister of State with responsibility for children. We proposed that there should be a Minister with responsibility for migrants. The Chairman is right in saying that we should look for a response. This is acting on behalf of the residents of Ireland, looking 24 or 25 years ahead. We have to take action on that basis. I am concerned that if we do not do something about that we will not have anticipated the problems that are facing us. May I put two questions?
May I finish this off? We will ask for a formal response to the point the council and others have raised.
I wish to make three points. I am inclined to agree with Ms Cosgrave about displacement. It seems to me, as an employer, that there has not been displacement. I do not think there are Irish people unemployed because of others coming in. Some may disagree with me in some areas but it seems to me it is quite correct. As that may not necessarily continue to apply, we really do have to take some action.
There were two points about which I would like to hear Ms Cosgrave's view. One of them was gender discrimination. I had not anticipated that was a challenge but I gather it is. The other point is the question of family reunification, particularly of those who are not necessarily married. Can Ms Cosgrave touch on those two problems and give us some idea of what they entail?
Ms Cosgrave
I will touch first on family reunification and then on gender. As regards family reunification, it is helpful to point out that there are various categories of migrants. I can speak to the range of categories of migrants, specifically as regards EU nationals and their family members; they are entitled to have their family members join them here. In that regard they are in a more privileged position than any other category of migrant, with the exception of refugees, but I will put them to one side in the immigration conversation. EU nationals have an entitlement to have their family members here, which contrasts with migrants of other categories but also with Irish citizens.
It is interesting to look at the rights and entitlements of family members of EU nationals where they are entitled to be joined by certain definitions of family members. Despite that entitlement and a legal obligation to do it within specific times, Ireland is failing in its obligations in that way. There is a much wider issue regarding family reunification for all other categories of migrants, and indeed Irish citizens and their families.
Senator Quinn has touched on an interesting point regarding the rights and entitlements of unmarried partners. Whether they are same sex or opposite sex there are problems. There is no formal provision for family members who are not in a marriage situation. There have been some recent directives, specifically in the context of family members of EU nationals. The most recent directive brought into force in Ireland in May introduced particular regulations and set about to improve the situation. The definition of a family member was widened to include persons who are not married. There have been some difficulties for people trying to offer advice to others in that situation because of the manner in which the regulation is framed and the definitions, but I will not go into that now.
It is still too early to say whether there will be teething problems because the first kind of applications are still in the process. They are still within that six-month timeframe within which the Department may consider applications. To date, the council has encountered some problems in terms of people saying that their applications have been refused. They are concerned as to whether the refusal is in accordance with EU law. As these are at the very early stages, I will not comment further. I will, however, flag it as a potential problem.
As regards every other category of migrant, in some cases applications have been granted to non-married partners of Irish or EU nationals to reside within the State. There is a complete lack of transparency as to the reasons for granting that decision. It is not possible to say with any degree of authority whether it is because they have been in a relationship for a significant period or otherwise. Some cases are granted while others are not, so the council has some concerns in that regard. I do not know if that adequately answers the question.
With regard to gender discrimination, it is important to recognise that internationally and historically, the experience of migration was that there were far more male migrants. That is no longer the case. There is significant feminisation of migration to Ireland and internationally. It has been suggested in some reports that it is 55% versus 45%.
Is it 55% women?
Ms Cosgrave
Yes, particularly in certain sectors of employment. There are obviously specific issues for women, as there always are in any context. In the context of migration, employment and so on, research conducted both by the Immigrant Council of Ireland in its Voices of Immigrant, the Challenges of Inclusion research and, more recently, by the Migrant Rights Centre in its examination of women who worked within the domestic home, found that significant problems of discrimination and exploitation were faced by women in those vulnerable situations of employment. That is an issue of which we need to be mindful in light of the location of their employment and existing problems in regard to the ability of the labour inspectorate to go into formal places of employment which do not include the family home. We must be aware of that and ensure that appropriate measures put in place to deal with situations of that nature.
Like Senator Quinn, I compliment Ms Cosgrave on a very professional, detailed and, at times, diplomatic presentation. Much attention has been focused on the plight of people coming here from outside the European Union. I find it incredible that each week I encounter husbands, wives and children who are being forced to travel long distances to Dublin. We need an entirely new Government approach to this issue. A decentralised approach should be taken because the current situation imposes severe hardships on people with limited resources who must travel by train, queue for long periods when they get to Dublin and travel back to their places of temporary residence. It is unfair to say the least.
I congratulate the Bulgarians and Romanians and welcome yesterday's decision in regard to their accession. However, it raises the question of what will happen next in regard to the free movement of workers. There is some confusion because when these countries become members of the EU, all their citizens will have the right to travel to, live in and buy property in Ireland. However, the question arises as to whether they will be entitled to work here. One myth that must be dispelled is that many of the people who are already here are not spongers. Figures from a recent AIB report show that 87% of people who have come here from the ten new accession states have found employment, which is significantly higher than that among some Irish nationals. The influx of people from the ten new accession states has been hugely beneficial to the economy.
This country must make up its mind sooner rather than later in regard to its attitude to Bulgaria and Romania. We have three options. We must open up our labour market, look for a derogation or introduce a very focused programme of work permits, although I do not believe we have the structures in place to have a focused work permits system. We will also be influenced by the decision made by the UK because if we make a different one, it will be an administrative nightmare. Does Ms Cosgrave believe enough information is available to make an informed decision on whether we should open up our labour market? Do we have enough information on the economic benefits and the social implications of such a huge influx of people? What have been the implications for our health service and education system to date? Little research has been carried out on the social implications.
Before a decision is made, we have a responsibility to perhaps discuss the matter with the Department of the Taoiseach to give us an opportunity to pose questions and give our views to that Department. One of the key recommendations of the NESC report is that the social partners should be consulted in advance of the Government decision. However, the elected representatives of the people should also be consulted. That could be done through this forum.
What is the Deputy specifically suggesting?
I suggest that we invite officials from the Department of the Taoiseach to come before the committee to discuss the social and economic implications of opening our doors to the new accession states.
We had some informal discussions about inviting the Taoiseach.
I did not want to go that high. The Taoiseach is a busy man.
It is an important question.
I would invite him but I do not want it to sound political and that is why I suggested inviting officials. It is an important matter and I do not want resistance from any source as a result of inviting the Taoiseach. Perhaps the Chairman's proposal to invite the Taoiseach is sensible.
We will contact the Department informally and I will come back to the Deputy on the matter.
That should be done because if the social partners are to be consulted, we should have a debate on this matter.
Has the Deputy concluded?
Yes. I thank Ms Cosgrave for her presentation.
I agree with the main proposal in regard to an office of migration — a centralised, one-stop-shop which would deal with the issues. It would make people more responsible and would result in a co-ordinated and meaningful approach. The issue remains that the people who have immigrated to Ireland since 2004 have largely come from the accession states. The main reason they come here is to work and, generally, they are able-bodied men and women. I am inclined to agree there is only anecdotal evidence about displacement, although I hear it now and again in my clinics. There is, however, far more than anecdotal evidence of exploitation, which is rife among the migrant community.Their rights and entitlements are being breached in terms of being paid half the minimum wage, their hours and terms of employment and the accommodation in which they are housed by employers.
SIPTU has recruited approximately 10,000 Polish people. However, its experience has been that it is difficult to get them to stand up to employers because they will simply be let go because there are others to replace them.
There is a serious problem in regard to enforcement. How do we enforce labour standards, a matter Ms Cosgrave mentioned? Even by setting up a new structure, we will need the will from the top and personnel on the ground to ensure it happens.
There are large numbers of migrant workers in my constituency and we increasingly see able-bodied men, in particular, who are consuming alcohol in the middle of the day and presumably find it difficult enough to obtain work. We have heard what is happening on the boardwalk on the Liffey, where every night there are six to eight people from one or other of the accession countries sleeping rough and there are far more coming to the centres that are providing food. Some of them are slipping out of the system. How does one deal with this?
My final question was also raised by Deputy Allen. There is a contradictory situation among the countries of the European Union that while we opened our doors — Bulgaria and Romania are being invited to join the Union on 1 January 2007, and I welcome their accession and that of the previous ten countries in 2004 — some countries decided to operate on one basis and others decided to do so on another. As a result and to put it bluntly, some countries did not pull their weight in terms of the entitlements which the people of all member states should enjoy. Consequently, there was a focus on Ireland, England and one or two of the Scandinavian countries.
Britain is making it fairly clear that it does not intend to open its doors. What will happen on 1 January next if only one country, Finland, does so? From what we heard when we asked the question of the Finnish ambassador, these people do not want to go to Finland. Few people went to Finland in the two years concerned — 7,000 went to Finland compared to the 300,000 or so who came here. There is a serious issue at the heart of the European Union, namely, that it will allow the free movement of goods and services but will not allow the free movement of workers. What pressure can be placed on all the member states to meet to their responsibilities to ensure the new accession countries will not enter the European Union as "half" members?
Ms Cosgrave
I take Deputy Costello's point. It is obviously a fundamental consideration for whichever member state is taking that decision. It is somewhat difficult for me to state that the solution is to tell other governments to stand up and be counted on this issue. The reality is that whatever decision is taken, it can only be temporary and in the long term every country must open this fourth freedom to everybody. It is only really a matter of time before all member states must open their borders to the workers of the European Union and this is obviously a problem for countries to contemplate in the short term.
In answering the question of how we take this decision and whether there is enough information available to the Government, there are a number of difficulties. First, there has been a significant problem, as is commented upon in the committee's report, that there is a complete absence of data collection systems, and that the data available are perhaps not sufficient to give the full information people will want to take certain decisions. There is a need for all Departments to think about how they gather data, what data are needed and how that data are best collated and then disaggregated. At present, for example, one will hear various figures bandied about on how many Polish, Romanians or whoever are here. The reality is that nobody knows. There is obviously some limited information from the CSO or based on the number of PPS numbers issued, but it is wholly unreliable because there is no way of knowing whether a person, once issued with a number, who leaves Ireland has gone to another EU country or has been repatriated to his or her country of origin. There is a considerable absence of information in that regard.
Some research is also perhaps necessary on the effects of what has been happening. This is obviously difficult because, as Deputy Costello pointed out, only three countries allowed nationals from the accession states to come to work and one can only speculate as to what the impact would have been and as to whether Ireland would have been an attractive option if nationals from those member states which joined in 2004 had access to 15 member states. I suppose the reality is — although this only speculation — that Ireland would have been an attractive option, either because of reasons of language or because of employment opportunities. The fact remains that Ireland is one of the most successful places of employment, not only in the EU but globally. We have low levels of unemployment. In the economic world, it is stated that we have full employment.
These are obviously issues that will be relevant to the discussion. My view is that a decision needs to be taken. If one says that one wants data collection or research, the reality is that perhaps the timeframe is not there to obtain such information before a decision is taken. All one can do in such circumstances is resort to relying, first, on the philosophy that underpins the European Union on freedom of movement and the fact that Ireland has long been a beneficiary of that freedom, and, second — to reiterate the points I made at the outset — on the evidence that is available, even though we may need other evidence or other information and that, without denying the obvious social problems that have occurred for some migrants, on what has been the general experience.
The question on the general experience can only really be answered by saying there has been no significant evidence of reliance on social welfare payments and there has been no significant detriment to the State in that regard. On the impact on employment, the overall live register has in fact decreased during this two-year period. As to whether there has been a problem in that regard, the economic evidence available suggests that our GDP has strengthened significantly as a result. They are the factors that can influence the decision.
Ms Cosgrave stated that there were no data. However, there are some. She approached the issue of the decision on the free movement to work for Bulgarians and Romanians by framing it around the issue of displacement of Irish workers, but I approach this matter somewhat differently. I do so on the basis that the decision is to be made based on the projections for the labour force in the Irish economy and what the economy will need in the future. While there have not been definitive reports, there have been estimates of the projections of what we will need in the future. If the current trends continue, there will be a sufficient inward migration of workers for the Irish economy. Some evidence from the latest FÁS-ESRI vacancies study suggests that the numbers of vacancies are down in many sectors in the Irish economy.
Surely there are some data. We need not resort entirely to the philosophy and we should make that decision based on what we need in the economy as far as workers are concerned. It seems to be sufficient without opening up free movement for work to Romanians and Bulgarians.
Ms Cosgrave
Relevant considerations brought to bear on this and the economic aspect is one of them. In that regard, the Chairman will also be aware that there are economic reports stating that Ireland can absorb and needs more labour, that the projected figures in some reports indicate that we need in the region of 40,000 workers per year and that if we want to continue the level of sustained economic growth of the recent decade, we will need workers who will not come from our own pool of labour. One may, of course, ask whether they can come from the new ten accession states entirely.
What is so bad about having a transitional period? What is so bad about considering this over a couple of years?
Ms Cosgrave
I am not saying that the Chairman's suggestion is not a realistic option for the Government and I fully endorse the fact that there are serious issues here that need to be examined. The Immigrant Council of Ireland has not definitively stated that it believes it is a given that the borders must be opened up to workers. We have articulated that there are certain considerations that should inform that decision-making process and that particular matters should not do so. I accept that there may be some need for a transitional period.
I apologise for interrupting when others were speaking on the general question of whether we should obtain a report from the Taoiseach.
I congratulate Ms Cosgrave. Considering that she did not make a formal presentation, it was been very interesting and she has made many thought-provoking suggestions. Social Innovations Ireland and Sister Stanislaus Kennedy will go down in the history of the State as the people who always looked to the needs of others.
Our report suggests that there is a deficit in the collation of available information. Approximately, 95% of the information is available but collating it properly is an issue. That is why the committee suggested that one Department should have responsibility in this regard and that will happen. What statistics does Ms Cosgrave possess which support the suggestion that the process is slower in Ireland than anywhere else? How many people have contacted her about this difficulty? As a result of the deficit in information provided by individuals during appeals to verify why they should be permitted to remain — a number have gone to court — the cases take time. All of us who have experience of the legal system are aware of how difficult it is to dispose of cases. How does Ireland compare with other EU member states in this regard? What statistics does Ms Cosgrave possess?
With regard to funding, the Immigrant Council of Ireland is an independent, non-governmental agency but it receives funding from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and Comhairle. How much funding does the council receive annually from agencies and the public? Ms Cosgrave stated that the council had not made a decision on the correct way for the Government to proceed on opening our borders to migrant workers from Bulgaria and Romania. However, the original letter to the committee from the council's chief executive officer, Denise Charlton, suggested that it is concerned about the upcoming election because decisions might be reached on a party political basis and, therefore, for all the wrong reasons. None of us would make a decision coming up to an election other than for the right, altruistic reasons.
The decision might made by people outside the Houses.
I will speak for myself. I would make such decisions for altruistic and correct reasons and for the good of Ireland, which is what I am elected to do.
I agree with the Chairman that plans are being put in place to examine the future needs of migrant workers in Ireland, which suggests that somebody is doing his job to ensure social problems do not result from large number of migrants arriving in the State without jobs because that would be absolutely appalling. The freedom of movement of people is a worthwhile principle underpinning EU policy, which I wholeheartedly support. However, the needs of the state to which the workers are migrating must be considered. For example, it has been suggested that between 300 and 400 Romanian workers will seek employment outside the European Union. Significant numbers of migrant workers have in the past travelled to the United Kingdom and Ireland.
I congratulate Ms Cosgrave on her presentation and her work.
Ms Cosgrave
The council aggregates its own data on an annual basis. My figures date back to October 2005 because October is the month our figures are published. Since 2002, our information service has received approximately 12,500 queries. They are broken down every year on the basis of the issues raised, nationality, gender and so on. I, unfortunately, do not have those figures with me but I can forward them to the committee. The primary issue raised annually is family reunification among EU and non-EU nationals.
With regard to delays in cases and how we compare with similar bodies in other jurisdictions, I cannot provide reliable comparative data in that regard. The council is not resourced to carry out an international comparative study. I will provide an example, which is not intended to illustrate an entirely unfair picture. We cannot sit on our laurels and say that because something happens in another jurisdiction, it is perfectly okay for us to have delays. The delays I experience relate to cases of people who are legally entitled to a decision on a residency permit within six months if they are the family members of an EU national but if they are still waiting after 18 months, that is considered a reasonable processing time. That is a breach of the law and it exposes Ireland to penalties and fines at EU level. That is an important consideration, which is specific to EU migrants.
In other categories such as citizenship applications, there has been a systematic increase in delays. When I started working as an immigration lawyer six years ago, cases took X amount of time. That time has increased by almost six months annually. It currently takes in excess of three years to process a citizenship application. I do not have the figures relating to administrative staff but last year the council had the pleasure of inviting a leading immigration expert from the United States, Dimitri Papadimitriou, to Ireland and he examined the figure relating to administration. The American immigration system is huge. Even though it receives a greater volume of applications, it has fewer staff but the processing of applications is significantly quicker. This should be borne in mind. Given the resources being invested in this area, are we necessarily achieving corresponding customer service? Some of the delays are unbelievable. I know of a number of people in the leave to remain category who have been waiting five years for decisions. Most of us would say that is not satisfactory and we do not need an international comparative study in that regard. Such timeframes are not desirable for the migrants, the administrative system or wider society. The migrants are in limbo and are technically not in the system or the economy.
We deal with such people in our constituency offices. Are the time lags widening or improving?
Ms Cosgrave
In my experience, they are getting worse.
Ms Cosgrave has 12,000 experiences, which is more than me.
Ms Cosgrave
It could have dramatically improved in another person's experience and, therefore, I stand open to correction.
On establishment, the immigration council was a project of Social Innovations Ireland and not a company proper. The funding available to the council, now that it is a limited company, is part funding from the original funds available for Social Innovations Ireland. We are also a recipient of funding from Atlantic Philanthropies and the non-governmental fund of many projects internationally. We also receive limited funding on a project basis for various work from a wide range of bodies. We receive funding from Comhairle, which is responsible for citizens information centres, because we offer it a helpline. All of the staff at the citizens information centres receive training from the Immigrant Council of Ireland on immigration related queries and we offer them a helpline so that if they receive queries with which they cannot deal, they can get directly to an information officer in the council. However, the Comhairle funding is not the core funding for our services.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs has also provided limited but welcome funding for the publication of certain information. However, it did not provide core funding for the work that goes into producing the information. We also received some limited EU funding from various projects we have partnered. We do not receive core funding from any Government source for the services or policy work we provide. The funding we receive of a core nature from organisations like Atlantic Philanthropies funds our advocacy and policy work, but it does not provide essential services funding because it is Atlantic Philanthropies' philosophy not to fund services work which it feels should be provided by the State.
Our funding operational costs are in the region of €750,000 per year. This covers seven members of staff and all building operation costs such as rent, etc.
I thank Ms Cosgrave for her excellent presentation. With regard to the political debate and what our Deputies are saying about this issue, how would the Immigrant Council of Ireland characterise the debate? Does it feel it is enlightened? Ms Cosgrave commented that assessments should be made on a rational rather than a party political basis. Is it the trend that politicians discuss issues for political ends rather than to broaden people's minds? What does the council hope to see from Deputies as we move towards an election in the next eight or nine months? Does it see dangers in this area? People from all sides have made comments that are not helpful, some of which have been regretted and withdrawn. Will Ms Cosgrave comment on this area?
Many of the issues I wanted to raise have been mentioned already. On the issue of legal aid thresholds, Ms Cosgrave said that migrants found it difficult to access legal aid. As the thresholds have been increased in the recent past, will she expand on the category of migrants unable to access legal aid?
On educational experience and language teaching in schools, is this at an adequate level? There is a gap in that area.
Representatives from Bulgaria and Romania who have made presentations to the committee have told us that economic growth is at a high level in their countries and the tendency to emigrate from them is low. The NESC did not have the courage to recommend one way or the other what to do, but just sat on the fence. I presume that the Immigrant Council of Ireland is in favour of the expansion or availability of work here just as it was for the accession countries in 2004. Is that right?
Ms Cosgrave
While not wanting to sit on the fence, the council recognises that this is a decision the Government must take and we must defer to it in that regard. The council has not lobbied actively as to whether Bulgarian and Romanian citizens should have the right to work. However, in any debate and when we have been asked, we have pointed to what we believe are the relevant considerations that should inform the decision making process. That is about as clear-----
Ms Cosgrave's comment on a rational assessment of existing evidence was very artfully put together. The issue is important, but I will not put a question on it because I understand the position. I hope to see those countries welcomed and that we repeat the exercise we carried out on the previous accession.
Ms Cosgrave
With regard to politicians, the Deputy covered that in his last point. I would not suggest that politicians will be irresponsible when we get to make the decision, but rather that we hope that when a decision is taken by the Government it will be informed by a rational assessment of the types of issues we have discussed today and that it will not be influenced, particularly in view of it being an election year, by concerns that have been expressed, whether rational or irrational, about the levels of migration to Ireland.
With regard to politicians and how they have responded to issues to date, some have been excellent, both publicly or otherwise. I am aware that not only does the Immigrant Council of Ireland receive migrants into its services, but politicians deal with them on a daily basis and routinely contact us to look for support on the information they should provide to migrants. Politicians are concerned to ensure that migrants are given the correct information and, where appropriate, they have acted where they believe there has been injustice or unacceptable delay. In that regard politicians have taken an appropriate interest in the cases presented to them.
That said, I have some concerns. In some areas across the board, not just with politicians or organisations, there is a fundamental lack of understanding about migration and the issues involved. Even among migrants some do not understand the sub-categories and what they mean. Confusion with regard to asylum and refugee issues, for example, has influenced immigration issues. We need to be cognisant of this in taking decisions. I do not wish to point to any nationality, but even among friends I hear people make comments such as "All these Polish refugees". Polish people are not refugees. They are EU citizens and are as entitled to be here as I am entitled to go and live and work in France. There is little comprehension among the wider public. The issue for politicians therefore is perhaps to ensure they are adequately familiar with what they are talking about when making statements. They must demonstrate leadership in that area and inform the public when they receive queries or address concerns in their constituency offices about the number of people here. They must use such opportunities to provide the correct information and discuss the issues responsibly and rationally.
With regard to legal aid, I am aware the Legal Aid Board has upped the threshold recently and will not get into debate about the levels, means assessment, etc. I am not saying that all migrants are entitled to free legal aid because not everyone — even Irish citizens — is entitled to it. However, for those who need access to legal services through the Legal Aid Board, it is a concern that many migrants are completely unaware of the board's existence and of whether they are entitled to receive legal services. I refer not just to immigration legal services but also family legal services or support for employment-related cases, etc. There is scope for the profession to provide information and make the service more available.
It is an awareness issue.
Ms Cosgrave
Of course. If a migrant is in employment and his or her income pushes him or her over the threshold, he or she is not eligible for legal aid services. I do not call for availability in that regard.
With regard to access to legal aid services of an immigration-related nature, there is a need to examine the possibility of expanding the role of the existing refugee legal service to allow its solicitors to provide legal services on immigration-related issues, something they are not currently permitted to do. Although there are separate categories of migrants, many asylum seekers will have immigration-related issues. I am concerned that they should receive proper global legal services and not just someone providing one legal service for this particular issue and not necessarily dealing with the other issues, which means they must go to another solicitor to deal with other issues. This results in a complete lack of co-ordination, which does not serve anybody well and is something that could be looked at in terms of making the refugee legal services available to other immigration-related matters. They have a wide range of expertise in any event which perhaps is not being best used.
Education is not my area of expertise and I will not make any knee-jerk comment other than to say that the council has prioritised the issue of education, about which it wishes to undertake research. To that end the council has not commissioned any specific piece of research but it has commissioned a scoping exercise to discover what type of research is required. I will share this information with the committee when it becomes available.
I thank the delegation for its worthwhile and informal presentation, which has been disarming. The committee appreciates the delegation's attendance.
Ms Cosgrave
The information in my presentation is available in my office if committee members wish more information on, for example, on family reunification, a matter raised by Senator Quinn.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.35 p.m. and adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 2 p.m on Wednesday, 4 October 2006.