Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 2005

Vol. 180 No. 7

Immigrant Workers: Motion.

Mr. Ryan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann,

—recognising the important contribution being made by immigrants to our current prosperity but noting the alarming number of reports of exploitation and abuse of immigrant workers and the assertion by the Government that such alleged exploitation was only investigated after a complaint was made;

—condemns all such exploitation and abuse of guests in our country;

—deplores the failure of the Government to adequately provide for the needs of immigrant workers, the inordinate delay in appointing adequate numbers of industrial inspectors and the apparent absence of any proactive system to prevent abuse and exploitation;

—demands immediate action by the Government to ensure that all employers of immigrant workers operate within both the spirit and letter of Irish labour law; and

—calls for immediate legislation to ensure that all immigrant workers are aware of their rights and have access to effective remedies when those rights are threatened.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Fiontar, Trádála agus Fostaíochta. This motion was put forward due to serious public concern that toleration exists for a de facto underclass of people who are at work but unprotected from the worst predatory instincts of unscrupulous employers. There is almost one horror headline story each week.

I do not wish to encroach on the territory of the courts but a construction company has been accused of wrongdoing. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, is aware of the conclusions of his own inspectors. I am aware that he is precluded from revealing much on this issue. That the court judgement ordered the document to be circulated among a number of bodies, including the DPP, suggests that the company in question did not get a clean bill of health.

A story from Donegal described people ending up penniless, living in hostels and dependent on the kindness of locals. Instances of exploitation in the agricultural sector were revealed by a local priest. The appalling treatment of domestic service workers is intermittently reported. It is an unfortunate characteristic of this country that action is taken slowly and tardily.

The work permit system was appropriate for a time when a small number of people were occasionally required by an employer to perform specific jobs. An example of this is the case of employees of ethnic restaurants. The connection between permit and employer was clear in such situations. Ethnic or family connections may also have existed. However, a system which dealt with perhaps a few hundred has been overtaken by the huge numbers of people now involved with migrant labour.

The numbers have decreased slightly since the accession of the new EU member states but not to the extent forecast by the Minister's predecessor. I remember the frequent claims by the Tánaiste and former Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, that the number would drop dramatically.

The arrival here of immigrant workers from the new accession states and from outside the EU is not a negative phenomenon. Unemployment in this country hovers at 4%. Despite the immigration of 50,000 to 60,000 EU workers and around 30,000 workers from outside the EU, the labour market continues to appear capable of absorbing these numbers. At issue are not immigrant workers but the system we put in place to protect them.

The numbers are enormous, as the following figures from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's website reveal. In 1999, 6,250 work permits were issued, the number increasing to 47,000 in 2003 and decreasing to 34,000 in 2004. During the first three months of this year, approximately 6,000 permits were issued, which suggests a yearly total of 24,000. While this represents a decrease on previous numbers, it is significantly greater than the figure for 2000.

This issue did not arise suddenly this year but has been present for a long time. As such, we have had a lot of time to deal with it. It is tragic that our response has not been generous or sensitive. The fundamental problem is that a permit linking employee to employer is close to a system of bonded labour. If the employer is not free to leave, his or her negotiating position vis-à-vis the employer is lost. The alternative is to return to unemployment in the employee’s home country.

In a civilised society those exploited by employers may leave and be supported by a generous welfare system. This State decided not to permit anybody with fewer than three years' residence or a close Irish connection access to our welfare system. By doing so people treated badly by an employer were effectively given the options of returning home, starving or putting up with the situation. Over the last number of weeks hair raising allegations have been made about a company with which the Minister and I are familiar due to a major construction project in a constituency which he represents and I endeavoured to represent. These practices are disturbing and I repeat they should not happen.

It is important to point out that there is no perfect system. However, one does not have to be an international authority to recognise where problems will arise. They will arise when people have limited language skills or where they come from countries where there is not a strong culture of rights for workers. Courtesy of an informative website, namely, that of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I was surprised to learn of the countries from which our non-EU workers come. In 2004, some 1,000 permits were issued to people form Bangladesh, 2,000 permits were issued to people from Romania, 2,000 were issued to people from Ukraine and nearly 900 were issued to people from Moldova. All those workers are welcome here. However, it is astonishing that there is no information leaflet available in Bengali, Romanian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Ukrainian or Moldovan. According to the website, information is available in Irish, English, Chinese, Czech, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese and Russian. I am not sure about Moldova and the language spoken there and I do not want to make an issue about it. There are 2,000 Ukrainians here and given that the Ukrainian language dates back a thousand years, it seems astonishing that we do not have literature available for those people in their language. That would seem a simple provision.

Another simple provision would be to ensure personnel are available in sufficient numbers and with appropriate briefs to ensure these people are properly looked after. I was surprised to discover that in 1932 the Department had two senior inspectors and ten industrial inspectors. By 1965 that number had risen to one chief inspector, four senior inspectors and 16 industrial inspectors. Today there are 21 inspectors with a promise of ten more. We need to consider the complexity of the issues involved, a major issue being the complexity of our industrial workforce. These inspectors cover not only the building and manufacturing industry, but the catering industry, the hotel industry and agriculture and fisheries. There are only 21 inspectors to monitor those industries.

I would like the Minister to explain the reason the urgent demand of the trade union movement for additional staff, articulated over a number of years, was delayed deliberately by his Department last year. Jack O'Connor, the president of SIPTU, is on record as saying that the announcement by the Minister, Deputy Martin, of 11 new staff was very belated, given that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had blocked moves to significantly increase the number of inspectors last year, last year being 2004. We knew in 2004 that problems were arising. We knew then that there were problems of abuse and misuse of workers. However, the Department's response was to say "No" to the call for additional staff. It is bad enough not to have enough inspectors but then an extraordinary phrase emanated from the Department to the effect that it can only take action when it receives a complaint. When we do not publish rudimentary literature in the languages of potential complainants, we can be sure we will not receive complaints. If we do not receive complaints, nothing happens.

The first simple measure is to make sure that if there is a significant community of immigrant workers here, they are informed of their rights by the State in the language with which they are most comfortable. There is no point in talking about countries like Bangladesh where a large number of people can speak English. Being able to do rudimentary business, such as working a cash register in a restaurant in an airport is not the same as being able to assert one's rights. I would not like to have to argue my fundamental rights in labour law as Gaeilge. I have reasonably good Irish but I would not like to be asked to do that. For people whose knowledge of English would probably be a good deal more limited than my knowledge of Irish, arguing for their rights in English is an impossible task.

Once we decided we would participate in the world market in terms of labour mobility, our first obligation was to let people know that. Our second obligation was to transform the value system of the Department from one of permitting to one of protecting. We want people to come here. We encourage and need people to work here. We could have the best part of 100,000 jobs vacant here if we did not have immigrant workers. Such vacancies would reduce our capacity to create wealth. We would not create wealth without those immigrant workers. We need these people and should provide them with literature in their own language. We should take a proactive position which would require employers to affirm that they are in compliance with all the provisions of labour law. Such law provides for inspectors to make random checks wherever people are working. It sets out a framework whereby people can come here legitimately to work, whether they be EU citizens or from outside the EU, and have access to welfare services, if there is any evidence of a reasonable dispute between an immigrant worker and an employer where the worker is not being given his or her legal provisions. We need to meet three provisions, namely, a guarantee that immigrant workers will not be penniless; a guarantee they will have access to literature in their own language; and the proactive, vigorous enforcement of the law by industrial inspectors. These provisions would alleviate problems in this area. I hope the Government's proposal to put in place a proper immigration system based on an intelligent assessment of our needs will address other problems in this area.

The idea that a future immigration policy would be based only on accepting people with skills would be grossly unfair. It would be wrong to suggest we would maintain a two tier system where graduates and people with high skills would have the right to come here. Most of the 100,000 immigrant workers who are here are in jobs that do not require third level or even second level qualifications. They are engaged in basic services, mostly jobs that Irish people do not want to do any more. If we are going to allow those people only to come in under the old system, they will continue to be exploited. We must ensure that anybody who comes to work here has rights, has those rights vindicated, understands those rights and believes that the power of the State will ensure that once they do a decent day's work they get decent treatment from their employers.

Ms O’Meara

I second the motion.

I wish to pick up where Senator Ryan finished by reiterating that the new situation we face of the rapid growth in the number of foreign workers here, which is very much to be welcomed, requires a new set of responses and it is a matter of urgency that those responses are put in place. The situation faced by the Gama workers and other instances we could cite of the exploitation of foreign workers have shocked people to their core. It is not that long ago since many thousands of Irish people travelled abroad as migrant workers. It was interesting to note that a delegation from the Fine Gael Party left for the US recently.

Ms O’Rourke

We do not hear its members arguing for the rights of the immigrants who are here.

Mr. Ryan

The Senator hears us argue for them.

Mr. Coghlan

And us.

Ms O’Rourke

I am not talking about Senator Ryan's party.

Mr. Coghlan

I spoke about that matter here and I will do so again.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Allow Senator O'Meara to continue without interruption.

Ms O’Meara

The visit of that delegation brought home to me the fact that it is not that long since many thousands of our people had to travel abroad to be migrant workers because of high unemployment here, limited career prospects and effective underemployment. With our recent personal experience, one would imagine we would be cognisant of the situation faced by a migrant worker in a foreign country, which is exacerbated when the language spoken that country is different from one's own language.

The new situation presents a major challenge, which is urgent and must be responded to. As Senator Ryan said, it requires a proactive approach by the Government to create a culture of protecting workers rather than permitting workers. A substantial number of migrant workers work in the services sector and in some cases are low paid. Some of these people would be very skilled in their own country. I recently met an experienced hotel manager who was working as a waitress. She did not mind that. However, she would have liked to be able to move up the career ladder but her work permit did not allow her to do so.

We need to be cognisant of the fact that a number of migrant workers are working in the low paid sector. The term "non-national worker" is a very broad one because it covers a number of nationalities. For instance, it covers many people from the new EU member states. It covers people from non-EU states in eastern Europe and the western side of Russia. It includes workers from India, the Philippines, Bulgaria, Romania and a number from Africa who possess a whole range of skills and experiences. It creates a whole new challenge for us to respond to this phenomenon. Our response as a nation and as a Legislature will determine how this whole phenomenon will pan out, particularly as a social phenomenon in the future.

I was interested in The Sunday Tribune poll last weekend which contained a number of confusing statistics. The fact that all non-nationals were heaped together probably created some distortion. For instance, some people would have quite a reaction to asylum seekers but they would have a very different reaction to migrant workers. We need to separate the two issues. The motion deals with migrant workers, therefore, I do not want to stray into the area of asylum seekers. From the point of view of testing public opinion, it would be more useful to be more specific in asking the question. We must accept that the phenomenon of an increasing number of foreign workers is here to stay, which is welcome. I gather from reading The Sunday Tribune poll that most people welcome it. We are now a multicultural society, which presents many challenges to our education system and our community and to which we must respond.

We need to address a number of issues, one of which I recently encountered in my clinic. The wife and children of a doctor from Pakistan, who has lived in this country for a number of years and made a significant contribution to the Irish health system and a local hospital, recently came to this country. When they applied for children's allowance, they were told that the habitual residence rule went against them. This was resolved, but if we had not made the intervention, the doctor in question would have accepted the fact that his wife was initially refused children's allowance. The case was won on appeal. There is another more recent example. A Sri Lankan man, who is working in the restaurant sector, plans to marry in August. He comes from an area which was badly affected by the tsunami, so clearly his work in Ireland is very important to his family. He is going back to Sri Lanka in August to get married, but he is concerned that his wife may not be able to come to Ireland legally because he is here on a work permit.

When we welcome workers to contribute to our economic success, we must remember that they have families. As this has been an issue for Irish people in America, why is it different for a Sri Lankan worker in Ireland? Our demands for our workers in America should also apply to migrant workers in Ireland. If we begin from that point, we will move forward in a useful and constructive fashion. We are now in a very different position from what was the case in the past. We have a lot of coping to do and investment to make to ensure our migrant workers are made welcome, not just by words but by our actions.

The motion indicates that the Government is not providing adequately for immigrant workers. It refers specifically to the numbers of industrial inspectors. We appeal to the Minister to adopt a protective system, which protects all workers and, in particular, recognises that migrant workers have particular issues and problems that must be met as soon as possible after they arrive in this country.

Mr. Leyden

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

—acknowledges and recognises the important contribution which migrant workers make to our shared economic and social goals;

—condemns exploitation of all workers in Ireland;

—notes the expansion of the labour inspectorate which will allow for a particular emphasis on the sectors where migrant workers are employed;

—supports the Government in its preparation of an employment permits Bill which will provide additional protections for migrant workers and put in place a statutory framework for economic migration policy; and

—commends the Government for the range of initiatives being undertaken to improve the operation of the employment rights bodies, the labour inspectorate and the joint labour committees."

I will speak later in the debate.

Mr. Hanafin

Given that it is 4 May and St. Joseph's Day, I welcome the opportunity to speak about migrant workers. I have difficulty with the apparent absence in the motion of any proactive system to prevent abuse and exploitation of migrant workers. There are a number of aspects to migrant workers. There is one aspect which is only in the remit of the courts and should be left there. If there was any wrongdoing, it was not in the Government's name. There is legislation in place to ensure this type of thing does not occur.

I could easily say we did not have the problems of migrant workers when the Labour Party was last in Government. The amendment to the motion brings us back to the question of post-ante and ex-ante, because the reality is that the Opposition is telling us after the event what we should have done but where was it before the event? We never heard what we should be doing because we all learned at the same time the difficulties that were arising.

Arising from paragraph 12.4 of the mid-term review of Sustaining Progress, and to assist in the preparation of proposals for consideration by Government, the Labour Inspectorate prepared a discussion document on its mandate and resourcing. This comprehensive document was circulated to the social partners in January this year so that their views could be obtained. We were all working together on this. As time passed, we all learned of the difficulties that were arising.

Immigration is and will continue to be essential to how we as a society develops and prospers. There is no doubt that at every level of income and skill migrant workers are assisting this country to become wealthy, for which we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Ryan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hanafin

In the early 1980s, the Irish were not that welcome in certain countries because of the situation in the North. Given the treatment of workers who emigrated to the UK in the 1960s and took part in the development of that country's infrastructure, we should take a particular interest in the welfare of migrant workers. In no way should any wrongdoing be attributed to migrant workers. We should have no hand in it, nor should we condone any activity that does not welcome workers to this country with a céad míle fáilte. People who come to Ireland seeking employment are welcome. It is a shared expectation on the part of Ireland's people and the new arrivals that the experience will be beneficial to all. Ireland has skills shortages which we need to overcome if we are to deliver the essential services and infrastructure we demand and expect and contribute to the benefit of all. People who deliberately mistreat migrant workers are preying on the inexperienced and vulnerable. Such people are despicable and have no place in our business community or Irish society.

The experience of the vast majority of migrant workers in Ireland is positive and consistent with migrant workers' experiences abroad. Our policy on migrant workers is based on economic needs and seeks to address identified labour and skills shortages. Obviously, our policy must respond to a constantly changing environment. Our labour market needs are continually changing as our economic performance changes.

For many centuries Ireland was a country of net emigration, with large numbers of young people emigrating to find employment overseas. However, this all changed in the 1990s. From 1997 to 2000, in particular, Ireland experienced an exceptional level of growth. This good economic growth has led to enormous growth in employment. Since 1997, the numbers in employment have grown by nearly 450,000. At the same time, the number unemployed has fallen by almost 80,000, from 10.4% to 4.7%, which is about half the EU average. The number of long-term unemployed people has dropped by nearly 60,000, from 5.5% to 1.4%. This is about one third of the EU average.

As a consequence of Ireland's economic growth, labour and skills shortages have become apparent. This has necessitated the recruitment of large numbers of overseas workers, principally from the European Union but also from a wide geographical spread of destinations. The scale of this is evident in the numbers of work permits issued to nationals from outside the European Economic Area in recent years. The EEA consists of the 25 EU member states, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and, for this purpose, Switzerland. In 1999, 6,000 work permits were issued. By 2003, this figure increased to 48,000. In all, a total of 110,000 non-EEA nationals entered employment in the State in the past five years.

Thanks to the positive nature of the Government's policies, our future economic outlook is good. The Irish economy is forecast to grow by 4.7% in GNP terms in 2005, twice the rate of the EU average. This positive fact has been recognised by the EU Commission which, in its commentary on the EU Stability and Growth Pact for 2005 to 2007, notes our strong growth and sound public finances. The good economic outlook means that considerable future expansion of employment and demand for labour are also expected. This will mean increasing the numbers in our labour force.

Given the falling numbers of young people coming into the labour market, there will be a need to mobilise labour supply from other sources, including from other countries. Not only must we acquire the number of workers we need, but we must also ensure that we supply the types of skills our labour market will need. The enterprise action plan, published in March, included the development of a skills-based immigration policy as a key task. This will support enterprise development as part of the strategy to move the economy to one which is both knowledge-based and innovation-driven.

Forfás and the expert group for future skills needs are currently engaged in research and consultations on the detailed issues entailed in the implementation of this policy, including the types of skills for which permits should be granted. This work will form the basis of a policy paper to be published by the Government later this year.

The Government is also in the final stages of preparing a new employment permits Bill, which will govern the issue of all employment permits for nationals from outside the EEA. The Bill will put the existing employment permit administrative arrangements on a legislative footing and thereby provide greater accountability and transparency. It will allow for a more managed economic migration policy and enable the introduction of a green card-type system for highly-skilled migrant workers. I welcome this in particular.

The Bill will also enshrine in law a number of protections for migrant workers. Employers will be prohibited from deducting from the remuneration of migrant workers any costs associated with their recruitment. The Bill will also prohibit the retention by employers of personal documents belonging to migrant workers.

Our economic migration policy must change as Europe changes. In advance of the recent enlargement of the European Union, the Government, in an expression of solidarity with the new member states, decided to allow full freedom of movement to citizens of those states from the date of their accession to the Union on 1 May 2004. The anniversary of the accession was on 1 May 2005. In this context, the Government decided that any future labour shortages should in the first instance be met from within the EEA, particularly because there are approximately 19 million people unemployed at present in the EU.

A significant proportion of work permits over recent years has been granted to citizens of the new member states who now no longer require them. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of work permits issued since 1 May 2004. The number of new work permits issued in 2003 was 22,000 while the corresponding figure for 2004 was 10,000.

I commend the Government's policy and commend its amendment to the House. This is the first sitting since 1 May.

Mr. Coghlan

I thank my Labour Party colleagues for tabling this motion. It is proper that Seanad Éireann discusses this vital matter and the social and economic ramifications of recent revelations. I welcome the Minister and look forward to his views on the motion and his response to questions posed during the course of this debate.

The shabby treatment of migrant workers in this country, as revealed recently, brings disgrace on us all. Everyone involved in it should be ashamed. As I said in this House on 13 April, the fact that any sort of exploitation, based simply on nationality, or even the colour of one's skin, could thrive in 2005 is a sad indictment of where we find ourselves. Recent revelations regarding foreign workers in Gama Construction and other documented cases of exploitation are shameful. I sincerely hope the labour inspectorate of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment investigates, prosecutes and punishes those responsible for any impropriety, exploitation and fraud that has taken place. In this regard, certain matters are before the courts. Will the Minister state whether it will be possible for the inspectorate, accountants or officials in the Department——

An Cathaoirleach

It is not in order to ask the Minister questions while making a contribution. The Senator can make a statement but cannot ask a question, although the Minister might be inclined to answer it.

Mr. Coghlan

As ever, I am in the Cathaoirleach's capable hands. It is important to ascertain what is outstanding regarding the people in question.

In response to a parliamentary question by my colleague, Deputy Pat Breen, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, informed us that there are 17.5 labour inspectors in the inspectorate. He stated one was on long-term sick leave and that a job-sharing inspector is on extended unpaid leave. Two inspectors are currently engaged in assisting the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The Minister of State also said there are currently 600 cases under investigation. That is a disgrace. It is yet another example of the sheer inability of the Department and Government to plan ahead.

Over the past ten years, there has been an explosion in the numbers at work and an explosion in the numbers coming to Ireland to work. What does it take for action before a problem arises? Is it the job of Government to put out fires as they spread or is it to stop them happening in the first place? Good, proper industrial relations are vital to our economic future and if Ireland gets a reputation for shabby treatment of its migrant workers, we can kiss that future goodbye.

The country should be up-front and honest about the need for immigration, the benefits it can bring and the repercussions of not welcoming it. It is a simple fact that Ireland will need to import the skills needed to ensure that it remains a world-class player. Goodbody stockbrokers recently said the economy has the potential to post cumulative growth of 45% between now and 2016, with the performance to be fuelled by immigration. Growth of this magnitude would see Ireland expanding at more than twice the rate of the average eurozone economy over the next decade. Against that background, we have the absurd farce of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform deporting and then bringing back leaving certificate students and of construction companies paying migrant workers a euro an hour to build this country.

It may be politically astute to give the nod to the more base instincts of some members of the electorate, but it is foolish to believe the economy can survive without a flow of migrant labour to staff the service and construction industries.

In order to attract migrant workers and keep them here we need to ensure their welfare is protected. Provision of information in the languages of those who work for us is a basic requirement. The website of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment provides information booklets on workers' rights in Chinese, Czech, English, Hungarian, Irish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian and Russian. While this is a welcome development there may not be staff available to speak to people in these languages. I do not propose that a fleet of linguistic professionals sit in offices all day awaiting phone calls from disgruntled builders but it might be worth ensuring a reasonable level of service in these languages is available in the Department.

This debate is framed by the lack of any Government policy on immigration. We should establish the economic case for immigration, set a level and establish and enforce a sensible, compassionate immigration policy that will continue to drive the engine of the economy.

It is essential to reduce waiting times for the assessment of applications to allow people work and contribute to their new society, thereby avoid consigning them to the human scrap heap until some official finds time to process their applications.

In its latest quarterly report, the Economic and Social Research Institute predicted a growth in the economy of 5.7% this year and a similar figure next year, and argued that immigrants should be given the fullest opportunity to contribute to the economy. Research has shown that immigrants in Ireland do not use their educational and other qualifications to their full potential, with many holding jobs for which they are overqualified.

It is time to acknowledge the economic imperative and moral duty for us to accept immigrants. The ESRI paints a picture of teachers, doctors and lawyers who arrive here hoping to improve their lot but whose expertise is not recognised and valued. This is both wrong and wasteful.

I implore the Government to establish a proper immigration system that takes into account skills shortages and the net benefit of inward migration, and upholds our commitments as a wealthy, economically-advanced nation. This is one of the most pressing social and economic problems we face.

Some nasty people have nasty opinions about the merit of foreign workers in Ireland.

Ms O’Rourke

There are plenty of them.

Mr. Coghlan

Yes, we must acknowledge that fact. We should not heed them. We should pay and protect those who come here and help to build our nation. We and they should accept no less.

Mr. Minihan

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased to contribute to the debate this evening because it is imperative that we have a balanced and accurate discussion on the rights of migrant workers.

We must recognise the significant contribution made by migrant workers and deplore any exploitative or unfair practices. We must also recognise and commend actions taken by the Government and agencies to address problems arising from the recent and rapid phenomenon of large-scale immigration.

Between 1997 and 2000 especially, we experienced exceptional levels of growth in jobs and employment. The number of those in employment has grown by almost 450,000 in the past eight years. Simultaneously, the number of unemployed persons fell by about 80,000. The unemployment rate is half the average in the European Union, having dropped from 10.4% to 4.7% in recent years.

The result is a new phenomenon, namely, labour and skills shortages requiring us to recruit many overseas workers, principally from the European Union, but also from countries across the globe.

All immigrants contribute to our society and not just those workers who improve our prosperity, as identified in the Labour Party motion. Addressing this topic here on 13 April, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, said, "Immigration is and, will continue to be, essential to the development and prosperity of Irish society." This is a relatively new phenomenon in this country but generations of Irish people have known the other side of the coin. We must send a clear message that people who come to Ireland seeking employment are welcome and we must treat them in a just manner.

It would be a shame to focus exclusively on the contribution made by migrant workers to our economy. As a recent article pointed out, we tend to categorise immigrants as non-nationals but they come from a variety of backgrounds and countries.

According to the 2002 census, 6% of the population living in Ireland are non-citizens, while the non-EU population makes up an average 2.3% of the overall labour force. Asylum seekers are the most prominent and talked-about immigrants of recent years, yet they constitute only 10% of those who have arrived in Ireland.

I am particularly concerned about the 100 or so unaccompanied minor asylum seekers who have come here from Nigeria in the past two years. We owe a special duty to protect children who come here alone.

In many sectors, especially services, agriculture and health, migrant workers make an indispensable contribution to our society. It is ironic and sad that some unenlightened souls speak of migrants as being a drain on our society or economy because we need them. The ESRI states the demand for workers must be met by immigration. We need migrants to keep us in the prosperity to which we are becoming accustomed. We must treat them fairly and with dignity.

This is not limited to providing money, allowances, accommodation or permits, or whatever. It is a complex and nuanced policy area. For example, last month my colleague, Senator Morrissey, called for our economy to make better use of migrant workers' skills, a call I echo. The ESRI stated that if more migrants worked in occupations that utilised their educational abilities, it would increase real gross national disposable income by 1% rather than the 0.4% attributed to them. This is not simply a matter of economic success or maximising what Ireland can gain from migrant workers; it concerns the well-being of people coming into the country.

All employees in Ireland are covered by Irish employment rights legislation, specifically section 20 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 which extends that coverage to workers posted to Ireland, irrespective of nationality or place of residence. A cursory glance at the media, or the entrance to the Four Courts, or even the gates of Leinster House on some occasions shows that problems exist. Without detailing the specifics of any particular case — this issue has been well aired in this House — I welcome the talks between the Labour Relations Commission and the management of Gama Construction.

I share the view that the Irish experience of most migrant workers is positive. We must be conscious of any claims of abuse or exploitation of workers. I echo the concerns raised that there are only 20 labour standards inspectors nationwide. Recent reports suggest that rogue employers will continue to get away with exploitation and worse as long as there are so few inspectors. This issue must be addressed promptly.

I hope I have provided some balance to this evening's discussion. People from other nations have contributed to the richness of Irish society and will continue to do so. The simplistic categorisation of all migrants is regrettable. The ignorant view that all migrants are here to get something for nothing is sad and must be challenged wherever it is uttered.

As I have said, immigration has been a recent trend in Ireland and it has been difficult to respond to it. However, we are doing a lot of good work, as I can see from the employment rights information booklets published in various languages on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment's website. I know there are real issues facing migrant workers, and I hope some of the points I have raised this evening will help bring about further discussion.

I will finish by recounting the words attributed to the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali who said "Good news is no news." There is some marvellous work being done, which demonstrates how indigenous and foreign workers are integrating with great success. May that continue. We must highlight exploitation at every turn and take every possible step to stamp it out.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. I have some difficulty supporting the Government's amendment, particularly its second bullet point, which says "condemns exploitation of all workers in Ireland". I do not believe that all workers in Ireland are exploited. I am sure that is not the meaning the Minister intends.

Ms O’Rourke

It means where that is the case.

Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Martin)

It aims to avoid making a distinction.

Mr. Quinn

It does avoid making one, but to——

Mr. Martin

The same labour law applies to everybody.

Mr. Quinn

That is indeed the point. I suggest that the wording in the amendment is not correct.

Mr. Ryan

It looks like Deputy Joe Higgins wrote it.

Mr. Quinn

The wording could be taken to mean that all workers in Ireland are exploited. As an employer, I have some difficulty with that. I am sure that is not the meaning the Minister intends.

I have mentioned just now that I am an employer. As a class, we are the villains of this piece. I cannot, and will not, take the part of those employers who have been letting the side down by abusing the rights of immigrant workers. We have already heard much about that this evening. My attitude to immigrants is quite simple, and it should be well known in this House, as I have often stated it. I believe that, as a nation, we should welcome newcomers to our society. We ourselves have been welcomed in many countries around the world over the centuries. We have heard that stated again tonight. Immigrants have much to offer our economy and our society.

I am sure the Minister is prepared to change the wording of the Government amendment.

Mr. Martin

We could add "wherever it occurs".

Mr. Quinn

One reason countries welcome immigrants is that, to get on in their new home, they are prepared to do work that is no longer attractive to people already living here and to work for rates of pay that people already living here do not find attractive enough. I recently spoke to somebody working for my company. She is a floor cleaner from the Ukraine, and is happy working in this country, but she is a qualified psychologist. She told me that her son, a qualified scientist, is working in Dublin, also as a cleaner.

Ms O’Rourke

I think that is terrible.

Mr. Quinn

That is a reminder that people will undertake work far beneath their capability. One of our tasks is somehow to find a way to change that situation. I know the Minister's heart is in the right place, but I am not sure how we achieve that aim. We have seen people's ability to lift themselves up from where they were before within a short period. On a recent visit to America, I met a man born in 1936, I think he said. He described the experience of arriving there from Germany with his family in 1949, when he was aged 13. There were three or four in his family. Within four weeks, that family had bought a home, and within six weeks they had a car. He told me that was so far removed from the way of life he could have expected back in post-war Germany. When people come to our society and achieve something similar, it is a joy to see, and we need to encourage that.

Immigrants can often be ready to start at the bottom and work their way up. Within limits, that is perfectly acceptable. Those limits are the nub of the problem. Our law rightly imposes on employers very strict constraints on the terms by which they may employ people. For instance, the law lays down that they must pay at least the minimum wage. No individual employer and no individual employee has the right to enter into any contract that nullifies that agreement. A raft of conditions apply to working conditions and health and safety matters. Some people will argue that we have too much regulation in that regard, but that is not a point for this debate.

The point is that the law is the law. No one has the right to consider himself or herself outside or above and beyond the law. As we recently discovered with the issue of taking money from the residents of nursing homes, not even the Government — the State itself — has the right to break the law. I believe immigrants are entitled to be treated exactly the same as everybody else. Part of the difficulty in making that a reality arises from the circumstances in which immigrants often find themselves. If they are illegal immigrants, they are immediately open to becoming the prey of unscrupulous people. Even immigrants who are here perfectly legally often find themselves at a disadvantage.

One difficulty that has been much encountered recently is caused by the fact that people do not necessarily speak our language or the English language. That cuts them off from many of the safety nets that would normally come into play. I know the Government and unions have taken some steps in that regards. In one of our supermarket outlets, we now do our training in three different languages. We need to do that to train people and have them understand what is required.

Ms O’Rourke

What three languages?

Mr. Quinn

We need to recognise that need as a nation.

Ms O’Rourke

What three languages?

Mr. Quinn

In that particular store, they are all European. They are Spanish, French and Italian.

Ms O’Rourke

Did Senator Quinn say Italian?

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Quinn, without interruption. I ask Senators to allow him his eight minutes.

Mr. Quinn

Another difficulty arises from the fact that the immigrants do not know what are their rights. Sometimes, trade unions can be to blame for that. There is an onus on us all, including trade unions, to draw the attention of those who do not know their rights to what their rights are. Many of the workers come from a totally different situation in their home countries. They might be more used to tough employers who can do whatever they like without any interference from the state or trade unions. Some come from places where a wage far below our legal minimum wage is considered quite generous. Now, we have the highest minimum wage in Europe, or if we do not, then we are very close to it. We can be proud of that fact. On occasions, however, I question the wisdom of that, as it eliminates jobs that would otherwise exist but do not exist because of the minimum wage being at a certain level. We can discuss that subject on some other occasion. That all adds up to a situation where we cannot reasonably expect our new immigrants to stand up for their own rights. In that sense, we must treat them differently and they need more protection than the average Irish worker. Unlike the average Irish worker, the immigrant probably knows very little about his or her rights and entitlements, and still less about how to go about dealing with the problems that they come up against.

The recent controversies revealed the total inadequacy of the labour inspectorate. I do not of course mean that the inspectors themselves are inadequate, but it is obvious that there are not enough of them and that the inspectorate is woefully under-resourced. We cannot afford to let that state of affairs continue.

It is with a heavy heart that I say recent events have shown that there are too many employers in this country who will exploit the people who work for them if they get the chance to do so. I would like to think such people are few and far between, but we can no longer be as sure about that as we used to be. In recent months, problems have arisen with individual farmers using immigrant labour. Problems have arisen among giant multinationals, which we brought here to help build our infrastructure. We have also heard about problems arising among respected private sector companies that have contracted out jobs under doubtful circumstances to third-party firms supplying cheap foreign labour.

I join those urging the Government to take the problem seriously and to take effective action to deal with it as a matter of urgency. The Minister's heart is in the right place and the intention of the motion is correct. To an extent, I always hope that such motions debated on a Wednesday evening will not have an amendment condemning them. I believe it is possible to have the best of both worlds.

Ms O’Rourke

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

In line 4, after "Ireland" to insert ", wherever it occurs".

It should have been Senator Leyden speaking at this point, but he has disappeared. I am glad to contribute to this evening's debate, as I did on a previous occasion.

We had a general debate during our first week back after Easter, as requested. I take Senator Quinn's point. Even though the amendment is in my name, as a red-clawed socialist I would not leave the amendment as it was. We condemn the exploitation of all workers in Ireland wherever it occurs. The former wording was quite ribald.

Mr. Quinn

Senator Ryan drew my attention to the wording.

Mr. Ryan

The punchline was taken from me.

Mr. Martin

I was worried about Deputy Joe Higgins.

Ms O’Rourke

Nobody has said well done to Deputy Joe Higgins, but I do. He took on the issue, carved it out and persisted. Whether or not we are grumpy about it, we should say well done to him.

Mr. Coghlan

We said so on 13 April.

Ms O’Rourke

Nobody else had the energy or commitment to address the issue as he has done. He was in Dunnes Stores in Athlone handing out his recruitment leaflets and newspaper. He got up on the platform and delivered a fine rabble-rousing speech and then departed. He travels far and wide in pursuit of disadvantage.

The motion and amendment are well couched, apart from the omission. I am glad to note the Labour Inspectorate will be expanded. Can the Minister tells us whether this has happened or when it might happen? I could not believe the suggestions was refused by the Department the year before when an offer of extra inspectors was made. If one spends one's life beseeching for measures it is odd to refuse them when they are offered. We read of this in the newspapers, although they do not always print the truth.

The Minister will hopefully bring the employment permits Bill before the Seanad and this would be very useful. We need immigrant workers and their skills, whether in growing mushrooms or cleaning floors. However, we are not using them according to their proper qualifications. Senator Quinn made this point, and I have seen many instances of people unable to use their mechanical engineering degrees or formal accountancy qualifications. They perform more lowly and menial tasks for which they are very glad to receive a wage. The economy could not operate as it does without this significant amount of labour doing the jobs for which it is difficult to get Irish people. However, the patronising aspect grates with me.

The situation with regard to Gama Construction is a shame. We had achieved a good competitive regime, whereby the NRA went way above its roads budget every year. However, we then got into a discriminatory situation whereby Gama Construction put forward tenders and clearly underbid far more experienced people who paid their workers the going rate and proper entitlements. Gama did not do likewise and got away with it. In future, if Polish firms give a good quote everybody will be tainted by the Gama situation. Every building contractor will have that issue hung around his or her head. We had a competitive regime with regard to tenders and I regret what happened and the way in which people were treated.

The last time the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, was before this House, I said that the Department was too passive when dealing with the issue of migrant workers. The Department stated that it had heard no complaints from workers. It was a case of chasing the person to blame. How could there be a complaint from migrant workers? How would they find Kildare Street and the labour inspectorate? How would they speak the language and fill out the forms? They could not possibly do so, yet that was expected of them.

How could there be a formal complaint from people who speak Turkish and have never been in Kildare Street? This has changed since Deputy Joe Higgins took up their cause. A vastly more proactive stance is required from the Department, which is why I welcome developments with regard to the Labour Inspectorate and the joint labour committees. They should go out and seek discrimination rather than waiting for it to come to them. That will not happen.

I commend the Minister with regard to getting the report printed and into the hands of ordinary people. He is allowed by order of the courts to give the report to the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda Síochána, but we would like to see it made public. It must contain something extremely nefarious since Gama is making such efforts to ensure its findings are not implemented.

We keep talking about our history, but immigration difficulties and policy are a new phenomena in Ireland. We have never been in this situation before. There has been much emigration from this land and we would have wished that all of our emigrants were properly treated. However, they were not. We are now in modern times and have modern technology and ways of doing things. The national development plan will never be achieved without foreign workers who receive their proper stipend and full terms. We should not think of ourselves as great because of what we are doing. These people have skills and we need them. It is an open market and we need them more than they need us. They have every right to be treated properly and decently with civility and courtesy. Above all, in an interventionist sense, the Department should seize the high ground and go after these people to discover what their complaints are rather than sit back and wait for them to come to it. I am not referring to the Minister in particular. The Department should be much more proactive.

I wish the employment permits Bill was before the House and we should debate the issue of asylum seekers. The greatest scandal is that they cannot work. There are 400 families in 400 mobile homes in a field in Athlone looking out the window all day long. These are grown adults who are told they have no right to work. Some of them have been here four or five years and have children who are sitting examinations.

Mr. Bannon

The Government has been in power for more than seven years and done nothing about it.

Ms O’Rourke

I am worn out writing letters and beseeching the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator's time is up.

Ms O’Rourke

What a pity. As I said earlier, my amendment to the amendment refers to the second point which condemns exploitation of all workers in Ireland. If we passed the amendment as worded, May Day would go to our heads. I am amending it to refer to exploitation wherever it occurs. This is due to the advice of our learned friend, Senator Quinn.

Ms Tuffy

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the Minister. Senator O'Rourke referred to Ireland as having an immigration policy. As I have said a number of times in this House, we do not have a coherent policy. It is very much a case of crisis management in that something happens and the Government usually responds in a negative manner which has led to legislation regarding carriers' liability and such like.

The discussion paper from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform indicates there will be new legislation with regard to work permits. Legislation is put in place on an ad hoc basis, usually as a reaction to something that has happened or come to light. Similarly, last year’s referendum was a negative response to our new situation in respect of people coming to Ireland, making a life here and having children.

The Labour Party is in favour of having an immigration policy. When a good policy is in place, it should be enforced. It should be an immigration policy based on a positive premise, that is comprehensively structured and well thought through. A green card system similar to that which obtains in the United States should not only be considered but should be adopted. In the United States, the authorities allow people who were not born there to achieve citizenship. However, nobody could argue that the US does not have a strict immigration system. This is the kind of system we should be examining.

Apart from the situation regarding the Gama workers, we have also encountered problems with other people on work permits who have been exploited over the years. That represents one side of the coin of our immigration policy. The other side of the coin concerns the unjust deportation of people such as the recent case of the student in Palmerstown. It has much to do with a negatively-pitched immigration policy. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced a discussion paper and some of the proposals mentioned in it. However, if one follows the discussion paper's logic, he may still be inclined to introduce something that is a hotchpotch of different systems. This is not what is wanted. A comprehensive system is needed that gives greater priority to the people affected by immigration policy than to the economy. We expect no less for Irish people who travel abroad and we should treat people in a similar manner when they come here. When this policy is in place, everyone will knows where he or she stands. One can enforce the policy and restrict entry to the country, but people who come here will be treated properly and will have rights.

The Minister is aware of the Labour Party proposals which we introduced many years ago. They were welcomed by different groups such as the Irish Refugee Council. The Government has been in office for eight years and it is time that it got its act together on this issue. The exploitation of people on work permits is nothing new. A couple of years ago, there was a case involving some Brazilian workers who were very badly treated and had not been paid for months. Some of them were obliged to return to Brazil without being able to find other work. We know the story about the other side of immigration policy. I have dealt with people who find it impossible to get visas for their relatives to come here. Irish citizens living here can find it impossible to bring an elderly parent to Ireland on a visa whereas it seems that work permits are handed out very easily. This again demonstrates that when the Government examines work permits and immigration policy, it prioritises the economy when it should examining workers' rights.

The system is really shown up by the following example. One of my constituents managed to get a work permit for someone to come here and do a certain type of work, but could not get that person a visitor's visa or an entry visa. The work permit then expired, by which stage that type of permit was no longer permissible. If something like that could happen, there is clearly not a joined-up policy in place regarding work permits and our immigration policy. I went to considerable effort to resolve the problem for the people concerned and got nowhere. Eventually, they gave up.

I am glad that the Government amendment has been amended by Senator O'Rourke. It had implied that all our workers are exploited. One reason it is so important to ensure that people who come here and work on work permits or otherwise are not exploited is to ensure that our own indigenous workforce is not exploited either. For example, companies may compete with other companies that exploit workers in the manner that might have been the case with Gama. What should they do? Should they cut costs and corners and pay lower wages to their staff so that they can compete in, for example, the tenders market? It is important that the Gama workers' situation is resolved, their rights are enforced by the Government and we never allow this type of situation to recur. The fact that struck and upset me most about the whole affair is that Gama was employed on contract to carry out work in my local authority area. Over the years, local authority managers and workers and managers have fought for their own rights. One would expect public sector workers, of all people, to ensure that workers' rights would be enforced. I do not make any allegations about the local authority's intentions when giving Gama the contract. However, it should ensure, as should the State, that when a contract is awarded to a company, that the workers' rights are implemented with respect to the contract and the company involved.

Ms White

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome the opportunity to speak on this topical and important issue. We all appreciate that unfortunately, the issue is topical due to the recent alleged cases of employee rights abuse. I find it unsettling that foreign workers might be exploited and taken advantage of and I condemn all such exploitation and abuse of guests in our country. We should be shouting from the rooftops that our economy would have collapsed and our growth rate would not have been sustained were it not for our economic immigrants. On a positive note, Senator Quinn commented about people emigrating to America. In comparison, from my day to day experience in the business community, I know of immigrants from Lithuania who earn more in a month in Ireland than they would in a year at home. Our economy would collapse without our immigrant workers while we provide an opportunity for people to make money, attain a certain quality of life and send money back to their own countries. Immigrants' remittances are going back to other countries in the same way we had emigrants' remittances from abroad in the 1950s, when many people emigrated. Immigrants come here and get money. They love it here for different reasons. Last week I met a Chinese beautician in Arnott's. I asked her why she liked it in Ireland and she replied she loved the weather. This is fantastic. She loved the weather because in China, she experienced extremes of cold and heat and she now intends to live here. I do not think the penny has yet dropped with the public that our economy would have collapsed without the immigrants who came to Ireland.

It is inevitable that we will also have intermarriage as well. I look forward to it. The Irish who went to the United States married Germans and Italians and people coming here will intermarry. This will be very good for us and will make us even more exotic than we are now. There is no point in my repeating the events relating to Gama as it has already been restated too many times. However, the Minister should know that my attention has been drawn to an area that would be well worth examining——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should address the Chair.

Ms White

I apologise. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has drawn to my attention to the rights of immigrant workers in private homes.

Mr. Ryan

Hear, hear.

Ms White

Abuses such as unreasonable duties, excessive working hours, no time off, no annual leave and low pay have been alleged. As Senator O'Rourke stated, there must be proactive investigation of these alleged abuses. It is bad enough that such abuses occur in businesses like Gama but they also occur in private residences.

Members, including Senator Tuffy, who spoke so well on the topic, have talked about the need for an immigration policy and there is no doubt that one is necessary. We need a skills-based immigration policy that admits people on the basis of skill gaps in the market. We cannot have an open door immigration policy that admits people who might not be able to use the training received in their mother countries. A woman from Mongolia who works on my floor in the mornings is trained as a radiographer technician but cannot find such work here. We need to find some way whereby people who come to Ireland and have a good command of English can use their skills and training. The woman's husband was a policeman in Mongolia but now works as a kitchen aid here. Neither of them is using their potential but they love Ireland and the interaction with Irish people who see their potential. We need a skills-based immigration policy but we should also support people who come here looking for work. All of us in Leinster House can see the contribution of foreigners who work herein.

I commend the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on his handling of the Gama affair. I know he is in command of the situation and that once the affair came to his attention, he stuck with it. I would like to tell Senator Terry that it was not possible to have an immigration policy when so many Irish people were emigrating.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator White is not allowed to address other Senators directly.

Ms White

It is very important for our image abroad that we do not gain a reputation for exploiting foreign workers because it is impossible to change such a reputation. I join with the Leader in asking the Minister and his Department to be proactive in investigating abuses. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to ICTU's investigation into the alleged abuse of foreign domestic staff.

Mr. Bannon

I welcome the Minister to the House to debate this important issue. From being a relatively poor country dragged into prosperity on the back of the EU, Ireland now has the second highest minimum wage in the EU, a fact about which the Government boasts. However, this is no excuse for complacency when our immigrant workers, who contribute to our economic growth, sometimes find themselves working in Victorian subsistence conditions. This situation has been highlighted by Senator White and the Leader, Senator O'Rourke, before me so there has been an admittance of Government negligence in this area.

While we can be proud that our economic growth benefits more people than before, we should ask ourselves what we are doing for often exploited immigrant workers. These people have come to Ireland full of hope and the expectation of a brighter future, as Irish people were when they emigrated to America, Europe and elsewhere. It is a sobering experience to learn about the suffering our emigrant forefathers endured in America in the museum on Ellis Island in New York. Thankfully, we have come a long way since then and similar conditions do not exist today.

It is hard to realise any dream on a wage of €1 per hour. Indeed, it would be hard to stave off a nightmarish life involving a constant struggle to exist. This is the reality facing many immigrant workers in Ireland today, a reality more will face in the future unless legislation to combat such abuse and exploitation is immediately introduced. What could have been a more fitting theme for the recent May Day rally than the rights and entitlements of migrant workers? The trade union-organised rally highlighted the harsh treatment many immigrant workers experience. Such abuses disgrace us all and give the lie to our position in the developed world.

Trade unions are under considerable pressure to cope with the volume of complaints from migrant workers concerning their treatment. Non-national workers are seeking help at union halls every day of the week. The number of complaints rises in proportion to the numbers of immigrants arriving in Ireland. Between 1 January and 31 March 2005, work permits were issued to workers from well over 100 countries. The situation facing Gama workers, which was referred to by practically every Senator this evening, is well documented and, while shocking, is not the first case of its kind. Unless appropriate legislative action is taken, it will not be the last case of its kind either. This state of affairs was highlighted by the protest at the opening of the new Lough Ree power station in Lanesboro in my own constituency of Longford in the presence of the Minister for Finance. The ESB was not responsible for the underpaying of workers but a contract company was guilty of the practice, as was also the case with Irish Ferries.

Allied with legislative change, we must examine the broader picture and the attitudes of those who have direct dealings with immigrants and immigrant workers. Government officials and staff are probably the first people to deal on a practical basis with immigrant workers and their approach and attitude is critical. Education in dealing with non-national workers must be provided for staff who have been thrown in at the deep end. Attention must be paid to the attitude of the Judiciary. Unfortunate instances of apparent prejudice by the Judiciary must not be repeated. Schools have an important role to play in promoting good race relations among children from a very early age. These important measures, combined with the Government's proposed joined-up approach to immigration through the establishment of a new agency within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to co-ordinate all aspects of immigration, from asylum seekers to foreign workers, should go a long way towards creating equality within a welcoming society.

Despite the best intentions, progress will not be dictated by the attitude of the Irish people in general. We must be honest and face the fact that we are, for the most part, intolerant of non-nationals. A recent poll commissioned by The Sunday Tribune showed that eight out of ten Irish people want restrictions on non-nationals. The poll highlighted that a significant proportion of the population wants the Government to restrict the number of non-nationals entering the country and has little one-to-one contact with non-nationals. This is evident in the fact that non-nationals tend to live in their own enclaves in both urban and rural communities and, in many cases, do not integrate or are not encouraged to integrate with the wider community.

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach

Order please, allow Senator Bannon to speak without interruption.

Mr. Bannon

While 77% of those polled believe that Irish people living illegally in the United States should be allowed to remain there, only 66% believed that non-nationals awaiting decisions on residency applications should be allowed to remain in Ireland. The unhappy picture presented by this poll is that while we as a nation were quick to accept the largesse of other countries and still hope to do so, we are now too grasping and self-serving to extend this hospitality to others. The concept of the Ireland of 100,000 welcomes is definitely one of our best known myths and legends. I await the Minister's response.

Mr. Martin

I welcome this opportunity to address the House on this important issue again. I also welcome the Senators' contributions, which will help inform the debate on the employment permits legislation that I will shortly introduce to the Houses. The Leader suggested I should bring it to this House first and I will try to oblige her if that is possible.

I will focus on the mutually beneficial outcomes arising from this relatively new aspect of our labour market. I endorse the Senators' comments on the importance of migrant labour to the success of the Irish economy from the late 1990s onwards. As Senators O'Rourke and White said, this has been an important factor in the successive growth rates our economy has enjoyed for a considerable period. I will try to respond to a number of issues that have arisen in the context of this debate, time permitting. I also wish to inform the House of imminent legislative proposals on employment permits and of ongoing Government policies and processes.

I will put the Government policy framework regarding the admission of migrant workers in context. Consistent with international practice, our policy is based on economic needs and seeks to address identified labour and skills shortages. Government policy must be responsive to the constantly changing environment because our labour market's needs continually change. Migration is, and will continue to be, an important part of our development and a major contributor to our shared economic and social goals. Strong economic growth in recent years led to a significant growth in employment levels. Since 1997, the number in employment has increased by nearly 450,000. At the same time, the number unemployed has fallen by almost 80,000 from 10.4% to 4.4%, approximately half of the EU average. The number of long-term unemployed has dropped by nearly 60,000 from 5.5% to 1.5%, approximately one third of the EU average. The latest figures for 2004 show there were 1.9 million people in employment in Ireland.

Ireland now has labour and skill challenges that have necessitated the recruitment of large numbers of overseas workers, principally from the European Union but also from a wide spread of locations. The scale of this is evident in the number of work permits issued in recent years to nationals from outside the European Economic Area. A total of 110,000 non-EEA nationals entered employment in the State in the past five years. Since ten new countries acceded to the EU in May 2004, 80,000 people, of whom 50,000 or 60% have been employed at some stage, have applied for PPS numbers. These are staggering statistics over such a short period.

Our economy is forecast to grow at twice the average EU rate, 4.7% in GNP terms in 2005. The outlook means there will be more skilled jobs to fill, which cannot be done from our own resources. We must pay particular attention to attracting the skills our labour market will require. The enterprise action plan published in March included the development of a skills-based immigration policy as a key task to support enterprise development. This is part of the strategy to move the economy to one that is both knowledge-based and innovation driven. Forfás and the expert group for future skills needs are currently engaged in research and consultations on the detailed issues entailed in the implementation of this policy, including the types of skills for which work permits and authorisations should be granted. We will publish a policy paper on this topic later this year.

To reassure the House, I will explain that the current work permits system incorporates a number of measures to ensure that employers adhere to Irish labour law in respect of migrant workers. By providing that it is employers who apply for work permits, this ensures the more effective enforcement of employees' rights and greater traceability. This is a matter we must focus on when the Bill is subsequently published due to the balancing issues involved. We must ensure we have a tracking and traceability system that allows us to get to the bottom of a situation when abuses are flagged. The debate has not been well balanced in this regard to date but we will have an opportunity to address the issue.

In making an application for a work permit, employers must provide details of the company, including its registration number, in order to ensure it is bona fide. An application for a work permit requires a statement counter-signed by the would-be employer and employee of the main functions of the job, salary or wages, non-statutory deductions, other benefits and hours to be worked per week. Work permits are not granted unless there is compliance with minimum wage legislation or with the appropriate joint labour committee agreements, which set minimum salaries and conditions for certain employment categories and to which Senator Quinn referred. In addition, where an employer wishes to renew a work permit in respect of a non-EEA national employee, applications require documentary proof that the stated wages have been paid.

It should also be noted that, where there has been a breakdown in relations between an employer and a migrant employee, the work permits system in recent years has readily facilitated the worker's change of employment. In such circumstances, a new work permit is issued to the person's new employer. This concession acts as a further measure to ensure employers adhere to Irish labour law in respect of migrant workers, as it allows an employee to move to a new employer when there are genuine reasons for doing so.

The fundamental principle underlying the employment of migrant workers in Ireland is that they are treated exactly the same as Irish workers in terms of pay and conditions. This is underpinned in our equality legislation and also in the corpus of employment rights legislation, which is also applicable. For the avoidance of any doubt, legislative provision was made in section 20 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. No one in the House or elsewhere in Ireland would dispute this fundamental principle, which is perhaps best enshrined in the mantra of equal pay for equal work.

I am particularly conscious that legislation is not made effective just by being written into the Statute Book. To be effective, it must be acceptable, reasonable and enforced. Over the past 20 years or more, we have put in place a whole framework of employment rights and associated equality legislation. Much of this arose as the European social model evolved. All of this legislation was introduced with the support of this House and with the engagement and acceptance of the social partners. As such, it is an achievement of which we can be proud. There are now nearly 2 million people at work in Ireland, all of whom are covered by this body of legislation. Most people do not know or need to know the intricacies of the legislation. However, they are aware of their entitlements concerning hours worked, holiday periods, redundancy entitlements, protection from unfair dismissal and entitlements under the national minimum wage or registered employment agreements. Employers are likewise aware of their obligations. We have a body of legislation that has gained acceptance right across workplaces and the nation.

This is the legislative framework and the workplace into which migrant workers arrive, thrive and, as many do, prosper. Their experiences in the majority of cases are positive but I am profoundly disappointed when it is otherwise. As I said during my previous visit to this House, I condemn any exploitation of migrant workers in any shape or form. My Department, in developing proposals for employment rights legislation, always consults the social partners. Likewise, I and my colleague Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, consult with the social partners in bringing proposals before Government and the Oireachtas for adoption. This ensures acceptance of the proposals and widespread compliance. To assist compliance, my Department adopts an integrated and complementary approach of information provision, inspection with a view to compliance and, if necessary, prosecution where compliance is not achieved. By way of illustration of these actions, it is worth examining the level of activity in each of these areas in 2004.

My Department's employment rights information unit received over 150,000 queries from employers and employees by telephone, e-mail or in person, inquiring about the operational features of employment rights legislation. In the majority of instances, the provision of clarification and user-friendly explanatory material on the legislation enables misunderstandings to be put right. I should also mention the invaluable assistance that the national network of Citizens Information Centres provides in delivering a similar service at local level with the support of the Department. People also seek information from the Department by way of the dedicated employment rights section of its website, which by far receives the greatest number of the Department's Internet hits. Information is generally provided by means of user-friendly frequently asked questions but people may also drill down through the explanatory books to the legislation and supporting statutory instruments.

Where particular issues arise, the information unit will either advise the labour inspectorate or direct individuals towards the rights commission service, which provides a redress system under certain legislation. The inspectorate also receives complaints from a variety of sources, including other Departments.

Last year the labour inspectorate conducted 5,160 inspections, so it is not as though people are sitting around waiting for things to happen. There is ongoing activity across the full range of legislation. Arising from this inspection activity and as a result of advice and guidance given, €486,000 was paid back to employees. In other instances holiday entitlements were established. There were 14 prosecutions initiated last year and the inspectorate currently has 600 cases under investigation.

It is clear that wide-scale acceptance of legislation is important and information provision greatly assists compliance. It must be said that when shortcomings are brought to their attention, employers generally readily comply and often cite a lack of appreciation of the body of legislation. The figures I referred to earlier must be placed in the context of a workforce of 2 million.

The labour inspectorate concentrates on those sectors of the economy where workers are vulnerable, either by reason of their age under the Protection of Young Persons Act 1996, or where there are joint labour committees establishing terms and conditions in, for example, the hospitality sector, security industry and the retail area. The existence of sectoral terms and conditions, agreed by the social partners in the joint labour committees, promotes acceptance but it also imposes a requirement that all employment falls into line and it is here that the labour inspectorate plays a role. I recently announced the appointment of an additional 11 staff for the inspectorate and it is my wish that these additional resources have a specific emphasis on sectors where migrant workers are concentrated. This is in keeping with the inspectorate's primary area of activity.

The legislative framework, while extensive, continues to evolve and develop. Of particular interest in this area are measures I intend to include in the employment permits Bill 2005. This Bill is in the final stages of preparation and will have, among its principal objectives, provisions for the protection of migrant workers' rights. It is intended that employers will be prohibited from deducting from their remuneration of migrant workers any costs associated with their recruitment. Employers will also be prohibited from retaining personal documents belonging to migrant workers. This will increase worker protection. The legislation will also address the question of who holds the work permit. In parallel, the Bill will enable the introduction of a green card-type system, which will allow highly-skilled and highly-paid people to enter the labour market in Ireland for an extended or indefinite period.

A number of reviews are currently under way with a view to simplifying and introducing coherence across the full body of employment rights legislation, as well as looking at the operational aspects of the employment rights bodies themselves and the legislative framework in which they operate. The framework for collective agreements reached through joint labour committees is also under review.

These reviews arise from the programme for Government and also the mid-term review of Sustaining Progress. The work now under way reflects an overall desire to revisit, simplify and consolidate the legislation, while not in any way changing entitlements under that legislation. The bodies and associated procedures for the vindication of employment rights are individually seen to be effective but the overall system appears to be unduly complex. The objective of the various reviews is to ensure a coherent and user-friendly system of employment rights legislation and vindication procedures through the employment rights bodies.

I am bringing proposals to Government that will result in the establishment of an employment rights group on which the social partners and the employment rights bodies will participate. This group will oversee a process that will simplify and streamline the complaint, appeal and enforcement procedure across all of the bodies. Customer focused working groups will be established in each of the bodies to address identified issues and a programme will be implemented to simplify, harmonise and consolidate the corpus of employment rights legislation. I look forward to bringing a consolidated employment rights Bill to this House, which will be developed in conjunction with the social partners.

The mid-term review of Sustaining Progress requested that a review be undertaken of the mandate and resourcing of the labour inspectorate. Following this, a discussion document was sent to the social partners for comment last January. The review highlights that the complexity of legislation in the employment rights area is impeding understanding and compliance. Likewise, there are confusingly different roles for the inspectorate under different Acts and this gives rise to ambiguities. These legislative anomalies are among the issues that will be addressed by the Government in developing a consolidated employment rights Bill. The discussion document was well received and a spectrum of possible models for compliance checking and enforcement have been identified and presented for consideration. Deliberations with the social partners will begin when the Department receives their final responses to the discussion document. However, it must be pointed out that the document signals that fundamental changes in approach must be considered.

A review of the joint labour committees is currently being undertaken by the Labour Relations Commission and the final report will become the subject of interaction with the social partners. Last May my Department published a discussion paper reviewing the operation of the Employment Agency Act 1971. Having reviewed submissions from a range of interests, including the social partners, my Department is currently finalising a policy paper which, following consultations with the Office of the Attorney General on some of its details, will be circulated for further comment. The intention is to bring a legislative proposal to Government following this second round of consultations.

At present the proposal is that all employment agencies, both Irish and overseas, will be required to be registered. All such agencies will be required to comply with the terms of a statutory code of practice, which would set out the practices and standards for their operations. The code will be overseen by a statutory monitoring and advisory committee and it would make recommendations on the revocation or suspension of registration and/or the prosecution of employment agencies that breach the code. It is my intention that any employer who recruits a worker from an unregistered agency, either Irish or non-Irish, will be guilty of an offence and liable to prosecution. These proposals will shortly be contained in a policy paper and all comments on them will be welcome.

The legislative framework is dynamic and evolving with the needs of all and this is as it should be. It ensures that the employment rights legislation is acceptable and practical in its operation. The House will recognise that the development of our legislative framework is ongoing, responsive to actual workplace experiences and undertaken in the context of partnership. I am confident that the resulting improvements will have widespread support both within and outside the House.

The cornerstone for our employment rights regime is that no distinction is made between Irish and migrant workers. That is the spirit of the motion before the House, that all workers, irrespective of whether they are Irish or not, should be treated the same.

When I was last in this House discussing this topic, on 12 April 2005, the emphasis was on a particular situation that was unfolding involving Gama Construction and its operations in Ireland. At the time I was precluded from commenting on that case because the matter was before the High Court. Given the level of disquiet raised by this matter, I am most grateful to the courts for the urgency accorded to the full hearing of the matters at issue, which is continuing in the High Court today.

I wish to update the House on developments concerning Gama Construction. I can inform Senators that today, on completion of the natural justice requirements of interested parties and with the permission of the High Court, I am sending the Labour Inspectorate report into alleged breaches of employment rights in Gama Construction Limited and related companies to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, the chairman of the Competition Authority, the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Revenue Commissioners. All of these bodies have prosecutorial powers.

Over the May bank holiday weekend the Labour Relations Commission completed exploratory discussions with SIPTU, Gama Ireland and Gama Turkey on issues central to the current dispute between the parties. The commission believes that, with the co-operation of the parties, it is in a position to assist in the resolution of these matters. I believe that a process of engagement between the parties, chaired by the Labour Relations Commission and with the commitment of both parties, can result in a positive outcome. I urge continuing engagement with the Labour Relations Commission, as all matters are ultimately capable of resolution.

I have attempted to demonstrate to Senators that the Government is very conscious of the contribution of migrant workers and places particular emphasis on ensuring migrant workers' rights are protected from the moment of engagement with the Irish workplace. We will take lessons from experiences to date and apply those lessons to legislative and other policy proposals.

Irish workplaces have shown great generosity in the past in responding to various challenges and I urge them to look to those who are new to this country and I encourage them to offer guidance and support. It is to everyone's advantage that we have open and welcoming workplaces. I endorse the statement from Senator Quinn and am interested in his point about language training. I acknowledge that more must be done in conjunction with the social partners. We have had some preliminary discussion with the social partners about how the Department can be more supportive in areas like language training for union members and so forth. There is a serious issue surrounding language and communications, which was clearly demonstrated in the Gama Construction case. Senator Quinn is correct in arguing that employers, trade unions and Government have a collective responsibility to ensure that workers' rights issues are dealt with correctly. We can do that if we work together.

I am aware of the contents of the motion before the House but I hope that Senators will accept our bona fides on this issue and that we can all agree on the broad principles of the way forward, in terms of migrant worker legislation, rights and entitlements.

Mr. O’Toole

I wish to share my time with Senators Brian Hayes and Norris.

I thank the Minister for passing the information concerning Gama Construction to the authorities that can take action because that is crucial. The Minister was overly coy in his speech in saying legislation will address ownership of the permit. What will this legislation state? Who will hold the permit? The permit application should be initiated by the employer and, if granted, should be granted to the employee. The employee should be able to get the permit renewed or changed at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I have been very impressed by officials at the Department in their commitment to labour and equality legislation. The problem is not within the Department. The problem lies in the staff numbers in the inspectorate. We need an enlarged inspectorate.

I am frustrated that trade unions and Government are dealing with this issue. Where is the contribution from IBEC? For every unscrupulous employer there is another fair employer who is being undercut and is at a disadvantage.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. O’Toole

This situation is not in our interest. IBEC should be asked to speak up on this issue. We need to increase the inspectorate size and we need to ensure the work permit becomes the property of the employee. Any outstanding EU procurement directives should be put in place.

A culture of impunity appears to be developing among some employers. I am uncomfortable with all employers being tarred with the same brush as Gama Construction. That is grossly unfair. Those who are acting unscrupulously and exploitatively are doing so with some impunity. The legislation should be framed in such a way that a company is required to prove compliance if challenged. The Minister's work would be easier and the number of inspectors could be reduced if agreement were reached with employers that registered and accredited trade union representatives could see the facts for themselves. This would save calling in the Department's inspectors and would prevent exploitation. Companies seeking permits should be required to prove to the Department that they are fair employers. According to the information on the Department's website this point needs to be proved. There should be a requirement to issue payslips and any company that does not issue payslips should be in trouble.

When companies compete for public contracts the Department should be reassured the employers are compliant. In recent years the Minister has said the work permits system has readily facilitated the change of employment of the migrant worker. I do not agree with that. I agree with the Minister's point that registering every employer ensures traceability. I would like this to be done for employers overseas and it should happen immediately. Once the employer initiates the permit it should be the property of the worker and the worker should be able to renew it in accordance with the existing procedure. The Minister should be satisfied the company is compliant with labour and equality legislation. Not only should migrant workers be paid a reasonable amount, they should be paid the same as their Irish colleagues.

I compliment the Minister, the Department and the Government on introducing the new minimum wage on May Day. This happened despite the mealy-mouthed attitude of IBEC. It was a nice gesture and it is good to see things moving in the right direction.

Mr. B. Hayes

The key issue is the way in which the permit system works. As long as the employee is tied directly to the employer and the employer holds the permit, the employer has control. Ireland was brought before the United Nations because of the way our system operates. We need to see changes to give much more control to migrant workers. The Minister says a system similar to the green card will come into place. This would allow highly-skilled, highly-paid people into the country but will not include the majority of people who enter this country.

Why has Ireland not ratified the UN convention on the protection of the rights of all workers and members of their families? It came into being in 2003. All of the issues the Minister mentioned in his speech are included in this convention. We have not heard an explanation why this has not been transposed into Irish law and why we have not signed up to it. I ask the Minister the reason for this.

Mr. Norris

This is an extraordinary situation. I grew up in a time of mass emigration. Now we have an inflow of workers into the country. It is an indication of economic health. It is also driven by globalisation and market-driven. It is not altruism on the part of Ireland. The Minister says the work permits system has readily facilitated the change of employment of the migrant worker. I do not believe that and plenty of cases would contradict the Minister's statement. There has not been easy transfer of the work permit. Employers have used their possession of the permit to restrict the human rights and wage entitlements of people in this country.

The Minister also said 5,160 inspections led to 14 prosecutions. The number of prosecutions is quite low. I understand the figure for this year is similar. It is important that additional personnel be put in place. In 1999 there were approximately 5,000 applications for work permits. In 2003 it was approximately 50,000, ten times the original figure. That is a real problem.

The solidarity shown by Irish workers and trade unionists is one of the things of which I am most proud. On a number of occasions when workers were being viciously exploited, and additional workers were bussed in, local Irish workers went on strike in solidarity with migrant workers. One example of this occurred in Mullingar. The Government should give as much support as those workers gave. I welcome the proposed introduction of a work permits Bill this year.

Although this may not be entirely the right time to raise this issue a senior Minister should know of these situations. I refer to hostels used for migrant workers and by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There is a tragedy waiting to happen and it will probably happen in Dublin. I am serving notice on the Government regarding what happened in Paris recently. One of these shambolic hostels went on fire and people were killed. I know of a situation where an Irish property developer, who exploits migrant workers, has four listed buildings in Gardiner Street. He has savaged them and ripped out the insides. He is on the enforcement list of Dublin Corporation for breaking all its planning laws. He has a property on Adelaide Road that went on fire. Several people were injured as they jumped out of a second-storey window. On the same day he was in court on the enforcement issue Dublin Corporation granted him permission for 28 additional units in the backyard of the property in Gardiner Street. What is going on? Why are properties used by migrant workers and asylum seekers never inspected by the fire services and the health services? People will be killed. It is time the Government investigated this matter.

Mr. Morrissey

I wish to share my time with Senators Mansergh and Leyden.

Mr. B. Hayes

The Senator should commence immediately.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Only two minutes remain.

Mr. Norris

Can we expand the time allowed a little?

Mr. Morrissey

As someone who has employed migrant workers I feel very annoyed that there are unscrupulous employers who have gotten away with exploiting these workers for years. The greatest service we can provide for migrant workers is integration. The only way that is possible is through language. The difficulties with Gama Construction would not have happened if those workers had received language training before coming to Ireland. That is the best course of action if we need these people for the long term.

In the early days of the permit system many unscrupulous foreign agencies entered this country with lever arch files full of bogus permits. These permits were paid for by migrant labourers on Friday evenings. Every three or four weeks the labourers were threatened with deportation if they did not give money to bogus employment agencies. Some immigrants did not come as asylum seekers but came in good faith as economic migrants. Unfortunately, many still live here in fear and on the run. These people are being exploited. I am aware of situations where immigrants are exploited because they earn such good money that they do not want to return home. However, I am surprised that employers remain willing to employ people without permits despite risking fines of €250,000 for doing so. Labour inspectors may not be aware of such employers. I appeal to the Minister to grant an amnesty to these unfortunate immigrants because they contribute to this economy.

Mr. Leyden

I thank the Minister for being here over the past two hours. He acquitted himself well with his speech and acted promptly on this matter. We welcome the new legislation he will bring to this House. People should bear in mind that Gama workers were exploited by Turkish rather than Irish employers.

Mr. B. Hayes

There were also a few Irish employers.

Mr. Ryan

Good old Irish employers.

Mr. Leyden

Our amendment has been amended.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Rourke raised that matter and we will discuss it after Senator Ryan speaks.

Mr. Leyden

I hope that Senator Ryan will accept the amended motion without calling for a division.

Mr. Ryan

I have tried to avoid excessive accusations other than criticising the Government's lethargy on this matter. The Minister's proposals are interesting but I wish to ask him one question. Given the range of nationalities of immigrants, in what language will the prospective employee sign the section of the application for a work permit which lists the functions of the job, salary, wages, deductions, etc.? I would lay odds of a pound to a penny that the worker signs it in English. It is not impossible to insist that an employee may sign a document which is sent to the Minister's Department in a language that he or she can understand.

I agree with the reasons given by Senator Morrissey why this issue should not become one of giving a license for exploitation. If a culture of exploitation is allowed to exist, the business position of this country's decent employers would be undermined. Unlike Fianna Fáil, I do not believe that all our workers are exploited.

Mr. Leyden

We do not believe that.

Mr. Ryan

I thought Deputy Joe Higgins got his hands on the Fianna Fáil amendment. This is not simply a moral issue but it is also an important business one. We do not need extensive legislation to deal with the immediate issue. We need to spend €50,000 to translate all our basic documentation into the language of each significant group working here. A Ukrainian immigrant worker should have a copy of this material available in his or her own language. This may be available but significant omissions exist in the list of languages on the Department's website. That is wrong. I was astonished that Turkish was not on this list. I thought that the Department would have generated documents in Turkish over the past weeks out of shame if for no other reason. I am concerned about a system based on work permit holders with high levels of skill who are not affected by exploitation. A person with computer or engineering skills may negotiate his or her position. Those who are recruited for work as contract cleaners or providers of basic kitchen services do not have skills.

Mr. Martin

The vast majority of those now come from the European Union. They will not need work permits.

Mr. Ryan

I base my information on the Department's website.

Mr. Martin

This has been the reality since May 2004.

Mr. Ryan

Am I to accept that the 150 Moldovans, 450 Ukrainians or 122 Bulgarians who received work permits since 1 January are all highly skilled? They are not. If those people are brought here and tied to their employers' work permits, they will remain vulnerable to the threat of exploitation. This workforce is complex in terms of language, culture and political history. In addition to changing the work permit system, a proactive labour inspectorate is required to enforce the law rather than say that investigations can only be carried out after a complaint is received. How will a complaint be received from people with fewer than two words of English? Three weeks ago, a tiler who was supplied by a legitimate contractor to work in my home could not inform my wife of his role because of his limited English. How will he complain if he is badly treated? The only solution is to ensure that the rights of these people are protected. Otherwise we will begin a process which will result in the exploitation of Irish workers generally and not only immigrant workers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Rourke proposed an amendment to the amendment.

Ms O’Rourke

May I repeat the amendment?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

For clarification.

Ms O’Rourke

The original amendment included the words: "condemns exploitation of all workers in Ireland". It was brought to our attention by Senator Quinn that this implied that all workers were being exploited at all times. It has been proposed to amend this wording to read: "condemns exploitation of all workers in Ireland, wherever it occurs".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Question put: "That amendment No. 1, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Brady, Cyprian.
• Callanan, Peter.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dardis, John.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Feeney, Geraldine.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Glynn, Camillus.
• Hanafin, John.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kett, Tony.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lydon, Donal J.
• MacSharry, Marc.
• Mansergh, Martin.
• Minihan, John.
• Morrissey, Tom.
• Moylan, Pat.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O’Rourke, Mary.
• Phelan, Kieran.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Ross, Shane.
• Scanlon, Eamon.
• Walsh, Jim.
• Walsh, Kate.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Bannon, James.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, Fergal.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Burke, Ulick.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Hayes, Brian.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Norris, David.
• O’Meara, Kathleen.
• O’Toole, Joe.
• Phelan, John.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Tuffy, Joanna.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators McCarthy and Ryan.

Question declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Ms O’Rourke

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.