I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to the meeting, the purpose of which is to consider the motion that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option, provided by Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: a proposal for a Council directive on a specific procedure for admitting third country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 6 May 2004. Members have been circulated with a copy of the text of the proposed measure, together with a briefing note.
EU Migration Policy: Motion.
The purpose of the measure is to make the European Union a favourable destination for researchers from third countries. It is aimed at attracting researchers to the European Union in order that member states may build capacity in the area of research and development and thus enhance their competitiveness.
While the area of research is primarily of concern to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, this proposal falls within the Justice and Home Affairs Council area at EU level because it deals with third country nationals. The proposals contained in the directive are made under Article 63 of the treaty establishing the European Community. This is part of Title IV of the treaty added by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. Title IV deals with measures in the area of visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons.
The application of Title IV to Ireland is subject to the provisions of the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Ireland is not automatically a participant in measures under Title IV unless we exercise an option provided for in the protocol, under the terms of which we have three months from the date a proposal is presented to the Council to exercise that option. We may also exercise it at any time after a measure has been adopted by the Council. Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution provides that in order to exercise the option the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas must be obtained. That is why I am here today.
At the meeting of the European Council in Tampere in 1999 the Council agreed to work for the development of a common EU migration policy and set out the elements which it should include, namely, partnership with countries of origin, fair treatment of third country nationals and management of migration flows. Working towards the creation of such common asylum and immigration systems at EU level is a key priority for the European Union. Co-operation in immigration and asylum matters is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of policy and legislative development in the European Union. The Laeken Council held in December 2001, building on the achievements of the 1999 Tampere European Council, committed the European Union to more intensive co-operation, undertaking to adopt a common policy on asylum and immigration. The impetus for this approach is partly recognition that member states cannot unilaterally tackle major issues such as migration management, border controls, trafficking in people and asylum determination.
In our Presidency of the European Union over the last six months we have made significant progress in moving forward the implementation of a common immigration and asylum policy. Agreement has been reached on a number of key measures in the asylum area such as qualifications, procedures and the new European Refugee Fund. On the immigration side, we have achieved agreement on the students directive while in the border control area, progress was made on the establishment of the European Border Management Agency. Previous proposals include immigration for the purposes of employment, study and family reunification.
In the area of research, in 2000 the Lisbon European Council set the European Union the objective of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world through an overall strategy aimed at meeting the needs of the information society and research development. The creation of a European research area was recognised by the Lisbon European Council as an essential element of the strategy. One of the preferred instruments for achieving this goal is support for the mobility of researchers. The European Council asked the Council concerned and the European Commission, if necessary in co-operation with the member states, "to take measures to eliminate the obstacles to researchers' mobility in Europe and to attract and retain in Europe high level researchers".
The European Commission has highlighted the need for more researchers in the European Union if it is to meet the objective of investing 3% of GDP in research by 2010 as agreed at the Barcelona European Council in 2002. The Commission estimates that 700,000 additional researchers are required to meet this objective. It also believes the European Union will not be able to produce this number of additional researchers and that the proposed measures are required to attract researchers from third countries and facilitate their admission. The mobility of researchers has been identified as a priority in the Irish Presidency programme in both the Competitiveness and Justice and Home Affairs Council areas.
Increasing research capacity in Ireland is a key element of our industrial policy. To date, over 50% of the €320 million invested by Science Foundation Ireland has been used to attract researchers from abroad to Irish universities. In addition, a significant part of the economy is driven by foreign direct investment through multinationals. To anchor foreign multinationals in Ireland we need to move from a purely manufacturing base to embedding their research and development programmes here. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment estimates that Ireland will have a shortfall of 5,000 researchers between now and 2010.
The proposed streamlined fast admissions procedure contained in the directive will contribute to the efforts under way to build research and development capacity in Ireland. It should be noted that the directive forms one part of a threefold initiative by the European Commission to attract researchers to the European Union.
In addition to the directive, the Commission presented two proposals for recommendations on the same date. These are not subject to the opt-in procedure under the fourth protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam as they are non-binding instruments. The first calls on the member states to adopt a number of practical measures without delay since it inevitably takes several years for a directive to be put into full operation. The adoption of the directive alone will not be sufficient to meet the European Council's objectives within the time available. Therefore, the recommendation will make it possible to take action on a number of points in advance of transposition of the directive. A general approach on the recommendation was agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 8 June. Its formal adoption must await the opinion of the European Parliament.
The second proposal for a recommendation is aimed at facilitating the entry into and movement of researchers within the European Union for short periods. It is often necessary for researchers to travel within the Union to take part in events related to their research. To this end, the recommendation calls for the validity period of the visa to match the anticipated timeframe of the research project. The legal basis for this recommendation falls within the area of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not participate. A general approach on this recommendation was also recently agreed under the Irish Presidency.
As I have set out the contents of the individual articles in the briefing document circulated to the committee, there is no need to go over them again. I strongly believe these measures, although they only apply to a relatively small number, will deliver possibly disproportionate benefits to this country by creating attractive conditions for researchers who wish to live and work in Ireland. This, in turn, should create a favourable environment for continued growth in the research and development sector and ultimately contribute to stronger growth in the economy.
I commend the motion to the joint committee.
This is a useful process in which we are engaged. We have learned about all kinds of matters about which we would not otherwise have read. As it is clear that the proposed directive is in the interests of this country, I am supportive. From the point of view of our continued development, it is essential that emphasis be placed on research and development. The directive very much fits into this approach.
I raise a number of questions. I note that we will need several hundred thousand additional researchers within the European Union in the coming years and 5,000 in Ireland alone over the next five or six years. From where will they come? I suppose there is a certain morality involved. As we are not talking about researchers coming from other EU countries — in which case they would not need any visas as they would enjoy free movement — I presume many of them will come from developing countries and the Third World. This raises an issue as to whether, in one of the richest parts of the world, we are attracting and drawing away people needed in those countries. I know this is a broader issue but perhaps the Minister will be able to assist us by outlining from where the several hundred thousand researchers in question are likely to come. I accept that, individually, they are probably dying for an opportunity to travel to the European Union or the United States which may be to their country's benefit if they only come for a limited period. More information would be useful.
The documentation provided is excellent and in many ways speaks for itself but I am unclear on the first of the two recommendations mentioned. The Minister notes that in addition to the directive, the European Commission presented two proposals for recommendations on the same date. The second is self-explanatory and makes a lot of sense from the point of view of being able to travel within the European Union. However, the first refers to the adoption of a number of practical measures. Perhaps I read it too speedily but I do not understand what practical measures are included. An explanation would be useful. In the main, however, it is very much in our interests to support the proposed directive.
I also agree with the proposal that we should as far as possible attract the best brains to the country in areas where we are short of particular talents and skills. It is an interesting concept that the Minister has put before us today. Few would have thought that the European Union required an additional 700,000 researchers over the next five or six years and that we ourselves had a shortfall of 5,000.
These proposals are the epitome of attractiveness. We are going out of our way to provide for flexibility, legal contracts, movement and so on. The Minister states 50% of the €320 million invested by Science Foundation Ireland has been used to attract researchers from abroad to Irish universities. I am absolutely amazed at this. When the fund was put in place a number of years ago, I understood it would be invested in the development of research facilities and used to provide grants to enable Irish universities and other third level institutions to put research and development mechanisms in place to develop the available talent. I would like to know what the breakdown is as to how the fund has been used to attract researchers from abroad to Irish universities. Has money actually been placed in the hands of researchers, or is it simply the case that facilities have been improved to make it more attractive for them to come to Irish foundations and institutions? It seems strange that half the money has been spent to attract other nationals to come here to undertake research and development in Irish facilities. I, therefore, ask for clarification.
Clearly, there is polarisation in what the Minister said. He is taking satisfaction from putting together a common immigration and asylum policy and the European Refugee Fund, etc. Now is the time to look at the research side. Immigration and asylum policy has been about placing restrictions on non-nationals coming to this country whereas research policy seems entirely to be about eliminating restrictions and making Ireland an attractive location. Non-nationals who come here in difficult circumstances, including in flight from persecution, are placed in a totally different category to researchers.
The manner in which we treat immigrants is appalling. They make up the other group which forms the backbone of the economy and we bring them here to do work that would not be done as cheaply by Irish people. If the Minister is to make it attractive to bring highly qualified individuals to this country, he should start by making it attractive to bring in persons who would do more menial work. He should look at such persons in tandem rather than state that is the way we have dealt with immigration and asylum seekers. We have a totally new approach for researchers.
Considering that the directive involves persons who will be employed in Ireland's third level research facilities and institutions, why is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform presenting the required motion? These matters are normally dealt with by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Department of Education and Science. This issue, no more than that of migrant workers, is not one for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This shows the need for a coherent policy on non-nationals from outside the European Union coming to this country.
At a time when we are spending a great deal of money in attracting researchers and given that there is a projected shortfall of 5,000 researchers between now and 2010, what is being done to put a mechanism in place to provide home-grown researchers? Are we making any inroads to that end? Does the Minister have any facts and figures? Can the Government do anything to reduce the shortfall?
Is it still the case that one cannot receive a grant to engage in postgraduate education or research? Anybody doing a masters degree or PhD will not receive a grant. While one will receive a grant to do a primary degree, subsequently one will be left to rely on what the institution concerned can provide in the form of earnings from tutoring, etc. What about the approach to home-grown researchers? Irrespective of whether the Minister can answer these questions at this time, we need to look at the matter in a more holistic fashion.
Some of the matters raised by Deputy Costello relate to other Departments. I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Houses Friends of Science Group which has been kept up to date on the activities of Science Foundation Ireland, for which a couple of hundred million euro has been provided and in which great work is being done. Recently teachers were encouraged to get involved during the summer break in practical research in laboratories in order that they could bring the experience gained to the classroom.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked from where the people concerned would come and if there was an ethical issue left hanging in the air. For Ireland to be seen as a research and development location, we must compete in an international process. If research and development is not undertaken in Ireland, it will be undertaken somewhere else. North America is recruiting research migrants from across the globe to participate in research and development. If the European Union believes in the Lisbon Agenda and is serious about making the Union a place where research and development can be undertaken, limited measures such as this are necessary to underpin the process.
I do not see that there is an ethical issue involved. In the recent past — five, ten or 15 years ago — there was a constant pattern of people travelling from India and Pakistan to North America to participate in major research projects. A significant proportion of the most brilliant research in the area of electronics, mathematics and the applied sciences was done by people from India. This did not mean that North America was hoovering up all the talent available to the great detriment of India because in the last analysis it has, in its own right, benefited from the repatriaton of the persons concerned with their considerable status, experience and qualifications. This should not be characterised as the First World selfishly hoovering up all of the intellectual resources of the Second and Third Worlds.
In reality, the economy requires considerable expenditure on the research and development front. It is wide of the mark to think that we can do this ourselves using home-grown talent by the simple investment in non-collaborative projects in an international sense. In one sense people give out about globalisation but globalisation in terms of the capacity to engage in research is hugely to the benefit of Third World countries. If that was not the case and if nobody came to the First World from Second or Third World countries to carry out research, in the last analysis it would damage those countries more than First World countries. It is not a question of having a tender conscience.
Deputy Costello mentioned the €320 million invested by Science Foundation Ireland, half of which has been spent in attracting foreign researchers to Irish universities. I detected in his contribution a sense that perhaps there was something undesirable about such a large proportion being spent in this way. There is not. Huge lump sums are not handed to people to get them to come to Ireland. It does not work that way. What happens is that research personnel are recruited for funded projects. The personnel concerned obviously benefit from this funding in terms of scholarships, sometimes payments or employee relationships in the form of a wage packet. They come to Ireland to participate in research and development.
I am strongly of the view that such an international collaborative approach cross-fertilised by outsiders is immensely more valuable than a chauvinistic alternative in which we only contemplate our own talents and throw money at our own citizens in the hope they will do the job. That is not the way forward. I stress that 47,000 work permits have been issued in the last year to non-EU nationals. On top of this there are students and other groups. Therefore, there is a huge number coming to Ireland either to study, engage in research or work.
Sometimes it is necessary to look at the figures for work permits. For the five months to the end of May 2004, out of a total of 15,224, the pattern of distribution was as follows: agriculture and fisheries, 13%; catering, 23%; domestic — unskilled work — just under 2%; education — which includes those coming here to teach and so on — 1.5%; entertainment, 2.8%; industry,6.61%; exchange agreements, 0.85%; medical and nursing, 5.92%; service industries — this is interesting — 43.49%; and sport, 0.5%. The big areas are agriculture and fisheries, catering and service industries.
If one removes catering, what is covered by the heading "service industries"? I presume the heading "agriculture and fisheries" includes fish plants.
It includes potato picking, harvesting and the like.
Mushrooms and so on.
It also includes people who come here from countries such as the Ukraine. As these are the figures to the end of May, I have not leached out where the applicant countries stand. I could not say whether a lot of their nationals are included in the figures. Ireland is very much open to the idea of people coming here to work. Some 47,000 work permits in one year is a considerable number. While I concede that a number of these are repeat permits, nonetheless, it is not as if this country is in any sense drawing up the drawbridge.
Do researchers come under the categories referred to? The Minister mentioned a figure of 1.5% for education. Are the persons concerned treated in the same fashion, or is an employer an institution to which they are tied for a given period?
I understand the majority come under this heading but it is difficult to include by category. They may not all appear under the heading "education". For instance, they may appear under the heading "software development" and, therefore, be included in the service industries category. I would not take the heading "education", in respect of which the figure is small, as including all researchers.
Deputy Costello asked the reason I was dealing with this issue but why is this committee dealing with it? The answer is that the Justice and Home Affairs Council is charged with implementing these specific measures which seek to facilitate migration. To put the matter in context, Ireland does not need most of these measures and could pursue its own policy with or without any of them. They are of more application to the Schengen countries and the policies they follow than to Ireland.
Let me give an example. If I bring a researcher to Ireland to assist in research and development in my large multinational company and that person is not free to attend conferences in Berlin and Paris or a three week seminar in Austria, for example, it very much debilitates my capacity to bring in a non-EU national to function as a fully fledged research and development worker if he or she has to write letters to Germany to attend a weekend conference or seminar. We want to provide for freedom of movement between European countries for such persons in order that they do not enter one country which is pursuing its own policy and then find themselves having to plead to cross borders to get into other countries. From the point of view of the Schengen countries, in particular, where a common admissions policy is of huge importance, it is important that they agree among themselves that they will facilitate research and development workers and adopt a uniform approach to allow them to bring their family members and spouses with them and provide for a guaranteed level of service. Some of the measures recommended such as those on turnaround times in respect of applications and so on are designed to create a generally positive attitude in Europe to research and development.
This is not a question of adopting a two-tier approach. Our immigration policy is emerging. It has largely been developed on a case-by-case basis, or on the hoof. We have not decided on a centralised economic decision-making basis that Ireland needs 15,000 low skilled workers who will be let in to compete with low skilled workers here. We do not do business that way. Some might argue that we should, that we should simply say it would be good for us to have 15,000 low skilled workers to compete for such jobs. Others might say this would be a bad idea because it would only drive down the wages of low skilled workers and subject them to unfair competition.
I have agreed on previous occasions that there are imperfections in the system, that what we do is related to employment opportunity and our needs. In the area of research and development there is a very definite need which has been identified and quantified to allow people migrate here to participate in research and development. If that is the case, it is not in any way a two-tier system based on invidious social discrimination. It simply makes a rational, reasonable economic choice in our interests.
On that point, are we not doing so in a crude fashion? We leave it to the employer, whether it be a farmer or meat producer, to effectively say there is nobody around who can pull spuds or deal with meat packaging. His or her word is taken. Therefore, the policy is employer-driven, without giving much thought to whether there is a need. Once the policy is employer-driven, the work offered will be low paid. Discrimination has come to light in recent times in terms of employment conditions and so on. This, more than anything else, must be overhauled.
It is not fair to characterise the system as employer-driven. If there was a system in place under which someone like the Tánaiste or me could sit down at a table and say block laying in Ireland is too expensive because the remuneration of block layers is too high, that we should grant 8,000 work permits for bricklayers from Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus and Moscow to come here, the first ones to give out would not be the employers. They would probably be leading the cheering from one end. If a decision was made, not by employers but in a centralised planning process, the ones who would give out would be employees.
Employers control the system. Why would they want to change it? They can pick and choose.
That is the point.
That is where it is wrong. Each employer has total control over who he or she brings in and for how long.
Is the Deputy arguing for a system under which a Minister would decide that it would be better to halve the wages of bricklayers and import 15,000 block layers?
I am not arguing for such a system. I am pointing out that there is a need for a system which the employer would not control from beginning to end and under which he or she would not have the non-national employee within his or her ambit.
We are totally outside the terms of reference, not only of the committee but also of the Department. We are here to talk about non-nationals coming here to carry out research projects in the European Union for a period of three months or more. Can we get back to specifics?
What is the position on postgraduate research projects here? It seems there are informal and ad hoc facilities for such research. We are not putting our own house in order before deciding to look abroad for researchers.
We are developing our policies in this area. I am not as up to date on the matter as many other Deputies and Senators but Science Foundation Ireland is piecing together a coherent national approach. Whatever one may say about the inadequacies, we are light years ahead of where we were. At least, there is somebody thinking about the issue and some group trying to make policy and applying resources on foot of it. That is a major step forward.
Did the Minister deal with the first recommendation agreed at the meeting on 8 June? For what practical measures does it provide?
I will give the Deputy a flavour of the proposals. The recommendations aim to encourage the admission of researchers into the European Community, either by exempting them from work permit requirements or by providing for permits to be issued automatically; to refrain from using quotas to restrict the admission of third country nationals for research posts; and to guarantee third country nationals the possibility of working as a researcher without a maximum time limit, save where an exception is justified by the needs of his or her country of origin.
On residence permits, the recommendations seek to set a deadline of 30 days for issuing residence permits in response to applications; to guarantee third country nationals working as researchers that their residence permits will be renewed indefinitely, save where an exception is justified by the needs of the researcher's country of origin; and to gradually involve research organisations in the admission procedure for researchers.
On family reunification, the recommendations aim to encourage the admission of family members of researchers from third countries where there is no obligation to allow them in; to allow researchers from third countries and members of their families to apply for family reunification where they are already legally in the territory; to allow family members of researchers from third countries admitted under family reunification the most favourable treatment granted to third country nationals as regards access to the labour market; to set a shorter deadline for replying to a request for admission of family members of researchers; and to refrain from imposing waiting periods on family members from third countries. The proposals also provide for operational co-operation, the informing of the European Commission about these matters, etc. The recommendations simply deal with administrative policy issues. There is nothing frightening about them.
Are we likely to be doing any of those things?
It is what we should be doing.
I agree. In some instances there is a bureaucratic wall. For example, nowadays there is a rule which encourages the giving of priority to those from the accession countries but I have come across ridiculous cases where every application lodged was met with a pro forma letter stating the application could not be dealt with because the person concerned was not from an accession country. I acknowledge the Minister needs efficient procedures but that is not the kind of response a researcher from Thailand, for example, should receive.
I wonder how the Minister has reconciled this directive with equality legislation and whether the Equality Authority has had a look at the proposals. We are bringing in qualified nurses from the Philippines and skilled workers from other countries and have only recently begun to acknowledge that they should have an entitlement to reunification with their families. In this case there will be a streamlined system for researchers. In the overall picture of migrant workers, researchers are so far ahead of the posse it is unreal. Could one interpret this as discrimination against other workers recruited and brought to this country?
Does the Minister agree the directive is chipping away at it?
It is moving in the right direction.
For one category of 5,000.
I am damned if I do and damned if I do not. If I make no progress, I am told this. If I make some progress, I am told it is discriminatory.
We will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt.
I might have a word with Mr. Niall Crowley.
That completes our consideration of the motion. Members have been circulated with a copy of the draft report. Is it agreed that the joint committee recommends that there should be no further debate on the motion in the Dáil or Seanad? Agreed. Is the draft report agreed to? Agreed.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. We look forward to meeting him again in the near future.