Employment Permits Bill 2022: Committee Stage
We now move on to our consideration of the Employment Permits Bill 2022, which was referred to the select committee by the Dáil on 12 October 2022. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate and update the legislative provisions that regulate the employment permit system, namely the Employment Permits Acts of 2003 and 2006, as amended in 2014. The conclusions of the Review of Economic Migration Policy 2018 endorsed the robust fundamental structure of the existing system. To increase the responsiveness of the system, to modernise it and to ensure that it is capable of adapting to the changing needs of the labour market of the future, the review recommended that new legislation be initiated. I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I propose that we try to complete our consideration of Committee Stage. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I invite the Minister of State to make his opening remarks.
I thank the Chair for his time and co-operation with this legislation. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Employment Permits Bill with the committee today along with the officials from the Department.
The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate and update the legislative provisions that regulate the employment permits system, namely, the Employment Permits Acts of 2003 and 2006, as amended in 2014. The conclusions contained in the Review of Economic Migration Policy 2018 endorsed the robust fundamental structure of the existing system. The review also recommended that new legislation be initiated to increase the responsiveness of the system, to modernise it and to ensure that it is capable of adapting to the changing needs of the labour market of the future. The changes proposed in the Bill will give effect to many of these recommendations, while retaining the key policy focus of supporting the economy and the labour market through evidence-based decision-making and ensuring the rights of migrant workers are protected.
Other new improvements include: the introduction of a seasonal employment permit; revision of the labour market needs test to make it more relevant and efficient; improved efficiency through moving operational criteria to regulations; providing for additional conditions for the grant of an employment permit such as training or accommodation support for migrant workers, business process innovation or upskilling to decrease future reliance on permits; and, importantly, automatic indexation of salary thresholds.
I am also proposing an amendment to the Bill that is designed to address the challenges in providing employment permits promptly to non-EEA nationals who take temporary employment as non-consultant hospital doctors, NCHDs, in public hospitals and public health facilities. These posts require the NCHD to undertake employment in a number of locations within the hospital system. The Bill provides for a new two-year multi-site general employment permit, GEP, to facilitate their multiple employment contracts during that two-year period so that they do not have to keep applying for new employment permits every six months. Further minor amendments in respect of NCHDs may be brought forward on Report Stage. This is something we tried in response to Covid. We worked with the Department of Health to make changes like this already and it is important we put the legislative framework in behind that as well.
The Bill also sets out the types of permit that will be available and broadly replicates those established in the existing Acts and includes the new seasonal employment permit added for seasonally recurring roles, that will be specified in regulations. The need for this permit type is borne out in submissions from the agriculture and horticulture sectors, as well as other organisations that have supported it.
Given that Ireland is an outlier internationally in not providing such a permit and in light of the broad welcome the proposal received in the public consultation on the general scheme, this type of permit is needed. Seasonal permit holders will fall under the protection of Ireland’s body of employment rights legislation, which protects all employees who are legally employed on an employer-employee basis, regardless of the work they do.
I am also mindful of concerns raised by committee members during pre-legislative scrutiny and in the various debates we have had. In recognition of those concerns, we are considering a significant range of protections for seasonal employment permit holders. Likely protections include: employers must get approval as seasonal employment permit-approved employers; seasonal workers having the ability to easily transfer their seasonal employment permit to another approved employer and a simplified renewal process that will offer low-cost renewals for multiple years; and accommodation being offered with any deductions from wages for it to be strictly limited. There is scope to tease through with members during today's debate, and before Report Stage, what they would like to see further included in that. The drafting of all our amendments and recommendations is not finished. I very happy to engage with members today and at a later stage on what we bring forward on Report Stage and in the regulations.
Further drafting work is required for this new permit type and further detail on this will be presented on Report Stage for consideration. An amendment to section 8 will also be brought forward on Report Stage with regard to international protection applicants catered for under Regulation No. 11 of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018. Permissions under the EC regulations do not in themselves confer the right to work. However, some of this cohort will, after six months, be eligible to apply for a permission to work from the Minister for Justice, without recourse to the employment permit system. A reference will be entered under section 8, which sets out the cohorts for whom an employment permit is not required. Again, that is something we worked on with the Department of Justice over the past number of months.
I also acknowledge the concerns from members of the committee on the requirement in our Bill for permit holders to remain with their first employer for 12 months before they can easily move. I have instructed my officials to consult stakeholders on this matter with the intention of reducing this time period on Report Stage. Some of that consultation has already happened. Members of the committee had some deep concerns on that, which they brought to our attention. We are willing to look and try to address that on Report Stage with the intention of reducing that timeframe from 12 months.
Following the debate on Second Stage, I asked my officials to consider the legal and operational implications of allowing all general employment permit holders, and critical skills employment permit holders, to transfer their employment permits to a new employer in a much easier manner in future compared with what is happening at present, and do so through a much more streamlined process. Nearly all of those present were at one in seeking that. We will try to accommodate that. We do not have it ready on Committee Stage but we will work with members to have that ready on Report Stage. It would be a fundamental alteration of our employment permit system, but we believe it is one that merits further investigation ahead of Report Stage to try to get the balance right. I thank Deputies for their contributions on the Bill so far. I look forward to our discussion.
I thank the Minister of State. We will proceed with our deliberations. We will take the Bill section by section and amendment by amendment. A number of amendments have been grouped. Everyone should have received a list of those groups. If members have any queries about that, they should not hesitate to interrupt.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendments Nos. 1, 8, 10 to 12, inclusive, 17, 20 to 25, inclusive, 30 to 32, inclusive, and 36 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“ “public health facility” has the same meaning assigned to it by section 25(5)*;”.
The text of this amendment provides for a definition of a public health facility in order to underpin the new section 25, which will facilitate the annual rotations that are a feature of the contracts of NCHDs without continued recourse to the employment permit system. The amendment will remove 1,500 applications from the system per year. As I mentioned, we are bringing forward a proposal for foreign nationals who take a temporary NCHD job that is not part of a formal Irish Medical Council training programme. The concept is that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will issue a two-year multi-site general employment permit for NCHDs in public hospitals and public health facilities, even though their employment contract is for less than two years. The first hospital would not have any legal obligation to employ the person beyond the term of the first contract. This amendment provides the definition for a public health facility that will underpin later amendments to give effect to the proposal, including a new section 25.
We are liaising with our Department of Health colleagues on this definition and will amend it on Report Stage if required. I will also be in a position to provide a definition for a public hospital health facility at that stage. We think this will be of major assistance and has proven to be so in response to the Covid pandemic and the pressure on our system. It will also, on an annual basis, assist more than 1,500 people in these positions. It makes sense to recognise that they might work across different health facilities.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“ “register” has the same meaning assigned to it by section 57(2);”.
The effect of this amendment is to insert a definition of "register" in section 2 to mirror that contained in section 57(2) of the Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, 15, 34 and 35 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, to delete line 24.
This group relates to seasonal employment permits. I do not believe there is a need for them. We have discussed this; the Minister of State will hardly be shocked to hear me say it. I do not believe there is a need for a seasonal work permit. There is not sufficient evidence to support the introduction of this type of permit. I am further concerned that we will massively increase the risk of exploitation of workers who will be employed under these permits. The introduction of a permit such as this further exposes workers who, we are all agreed and there is no dispute about it, constitute some of the most vulnerable in the labour market. The creation of seasonal work permits to address supposed difficulties in certain sectors, whether or not it is the intention, will facilitate bad employers in circumventing improving pay and conditions.
I talked to a very long-time union organiser who still organises workers. He said the reason trade unions and migrant rights' organisations, etc., are opposed to and concerned about these permits is the workers will be here exactly long enough to be exploited but not long enough to be organised, and will then be gone. These permits facilitate that. We all know and can take it as given that the vast majority of employers do not engage in disgusting, awful practices, but there are some who do. The facilitation of these types of employers through the creation of seasonal work permits would be a grave mistake. What these workers need is a living wage, decent pay and conditions, and a right to collective bargaining. Unless and until that exists for all workers, the creation of any kind of seasonal work permit will be very problematic.
We know that between 2015 and 2021 the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, worked on detecting breaches of employment law. It found such breaches in more than one third of its investigations. In 35.9% of the cases it investigated, the WRC found breaches by employers for non-payment of the minimum wage, for employment permit breaches, for breaches of legislation on the protection of young persons, and for breaches of annual leave and public holidays entitlements, etc. Sectors such as food, drink, retail, wholesale, and hair and beauty are over-represented in these instances. They cannot deny that. We can see the evidence speaks for itself. The Minister of State and I have long debated whether the WRC should be better funded. If there was more funding for the WRC, we would uncover more of this. All the evidence suggests that where the WRC goes in, it does its work, and is very diligent and very good at it, but it finds breaches.
It is not just Sinn Féin that is concerned about these seasonal work permits. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, is also concerned, as are the Migrant Rights Centre, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and this committee, which expressed a concern in our report on this. We are not a lone voice on this matter. I argue that the Government, in proposing this, is somewhat of a lone voice. The opinion of many people who have very real experience of dealing with the labour market indicates they are vehemently opposed to the introduction of seasonal work permits.
I will quote from the first recommendation in the committee's report. It states:
The Committee has not seen sufficient evidence to support the proposed introduction of a Seasonal Employment Permit, and it is also concerned about the lack of detail in the proposal.
[...]
The protections and provisions under the existing General Employment Permit scheme must not be diminished, and workers’ rights must not be undermined.
We have before us, however, an approach by the Government of emphasising flexibility for employers and, with this scheme, opening up a carte blanche for employers in certain sectors, such as fruit picking and hospitality, to treat migrant workers like tools who can be brought in for a few relevant months, exploited as good as they possibly can be, and then off they go without a second thought at the end of the season.
I am interested to hear the Minister's response but I do not see how such a system of seasonal exploitation, which is what it is, is not designed purely for the benefit of the employers and leaves workers in a weak situation, without the ability to organise or integrate. They are just there to be exploited for a few months. The Minister says we are going to introduce protections and whatever else. I am interested to hear about those. However, the purpose of a seasonal employment scheme is for these low-paid sectors to get extra cheap labour in for a short period of time without the danger of the employees getting organised and fighting to improve their terms and conditions.
I can see the case for seasonal contracts. There are seasonal contracts in all sorts of sectors. Clearly, if people from outside the EU are coming in on permits, we need to be particularly careful. I would be interested to hear how this proposed registration system will work. What will be the expectation of employers who register and establish a need? What sorts of protections might be afforded to people who are availing of permits? The Minister mentioned the capacity of an employee to move from employer to employer. We have seen seasonal work for a long time. It is a feature of many countries and if it is arranged in a proper manner, it is perfectly okay. It would be good to hear more of the detail the Minister foresees in respect of registration, protections, transfers and so on.
We call them seasonal employment permits but perhaps that term has certain connotations, as my colleagues have said. We need to recognise that there are certain jobs that only occur at certain times of the year. Flower-picking and fruit-picking come to mind. People can come in to do that work for a period of time and then leave, perhaps to do similar work somewhere else. If they are here outside that period, there may not be anything for them to do. We must bear that in mind. We must ensure that the workers are protected completely and that everything possible is done to ensure there is no exploitation, that their accommodation is up to standard, the wages they get are adequate and any expenses they have are covered. We must ensure that any issues are identified and addressed. I note what the Minister said. He spoke of more protections and I would like to hear more about those.
I apologise for being late to the meeting. The provision in this section troubles me, frankly, for a host of reasons. I have dealt routinely over the years with cases of exploitation in areas that I am assuming the Minister wishes to cover under the seasonal employment permit. As I am sure my colleagues mentioned before I arrived, it adds another tier to an already unequal permit system. By definition, those who will be seeking access to these permits will be working in areas that are, frankly, synonymous with poor pay and terms and conditions, and exploitation. That does not apply in every case, of course, but the reports I have heard and the cases and complaints I have dealt with over the years have disproportionately related to sectors that one would imagine will be using these permits.
As the Minister will be aware, there are also issues in respect of the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act and deductions for board and lodging and so on. We have seen the outsourcing of accommodation and so on to agencies. Transportation has also been outsourced. The relationship between the employer and employee might be considered by some to be at arm's length. There are a number of layers to that, adding to the complexity for people who are already in difficult circumstances and working in difficult conditions, and who feel they do not have the agency and may not have the knowledge to vindicate their own rights. They may not understand their rights in this country. Creating this new tier is problematic.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister where the demand is and who is requesting this new approach. If he is determined to introduce this new tier, which I would advise against, what protections will be in place? How will this new permit be regulated and its terms enforced?
I accept that most of the members of the committee have a different view on this matter, as we have discussed at length a few times. That is why I have said I am willing to work with members to get this right and put in place additional protections. We can do that on Report Stage. Before Report Stage, I am willing to sit down with members to tease through any issues. We are working on a number of changes with different Departments that we will bring to Cabinet to strengthen the legislation.
A seasonal permit is not unique to Ireland. In fact, we are almost unique in not having one. Most other countries have such a system. There have been references to organisations that do not support such a system but to be clear, I sought guidance from the International Organization for Migration, one of the leading intergovernmental advice bodies on this issue. That organisation supports seasonal permits under the right conditions. It has expertise in this area that extends far beyond Ireland and it is not against this proposal. I am happy to tease through the issues.
There is a need for these permits in certain sectors. Deputy Stanton mentioned flower-picking and fruit-picking. Another example is agricultural contractors. A number of people spend the winter in New Zealand harvesting silage and come here in the summer, and vice versa. A number of sectors will use this scheme. We are not going to make it easy to avail of a seasonal permit. The recommendation we will bring forward on Report Stage will be to try this at first as a pilot scheme in a particular sector. We can track and monitor it to see if it works. All the protections that are in place for anybody who works in the State will be available for a seasonal worker. Those protections are available and there is no issue about strengthening their position. As the committee knows, we increased the budget of the Workplace Relations Commission in consecutive years. There is an issue as to whether it has enough staff and we will work with the commission in that regard. The commission is very committed. It is in a position to manage and track this scheme.
The big issue for us, and this is a change with which members should be happy, is that employers will have to be approved for seasonal employment permits. That means we will interrogate any applicant company and its directors to ensure they honour and respect the laws of the State. To be clear, employers will not be able to get approval easily. We will work on the scheme to ensure we can track its use.
If an agency brings in a worker, what is the State's responsibility? We are clear on that point and can copper-fasten the position on Report Stage and through regulations. The agencies will be responsible for the terms and conditions of employees and must ensure respect for the relevant law. We cannot have the situation that arises on some occasions where agencies and employers claim it is nothing to do with them. We are clear on the position and the legislation will reflect that. We want to strengthen that aspect.
Seasonal workers will have the ability to easily transfer their seasonal employment permit to another approved employer. That is key. Members across the board want to deal with the concern that a person could be tied to an employer that is not following the rules or the law. We are working to strengthen that protection.
There will be issues around terms and conditions, and wages. We will require employers to adhere to the national minimum wage. We are now on track to achieve the living wage. If accommodation is being offered, it must not come out of the wages. That is the space we are in. Our intention is to protect workers.
We think there is a need for such a permit. It is accepted internationally that there is a need for seasonal workers. We will go above and beyond to ensure employers are not abusing these arrangements. I must repeat that the majority of employers are good employers. We must ensure the legislation does not penalise good employers while ensuring we can deal with those who are not good employers, those who allow people to work in poor conditions. That is a matter we will deal with. The State has quite strong protections for its workers and they will be fully available to anybody, no matter what sector he or she is employed in.
I accept Deputy Paul Murphy's point that we do not have all the amendments we would like to have because they are not ready. We will return to these matters on Report Stage or before then to try to work with the committee. We believe this scheme is needed. I understand and accept that some committee members genuinely disagree with it and I am willing to work with them to strengthen the legislation to ensure that seasonal workers can avail of all the protections available in the State and more.
I am willing to work with the Deputy on that so that we can strengthen the position that if someone is in seasonal work, they will have all the protections of the State and more.
I am still not convinced there is a need for these. I understand the Minister of State is trying to justify them but I do not know who is asking for them. I am not certain how much lobbying has been done on it. It has truly been successful even if it is only a small number. We have 2.5 million people in work and 60 WRC inspectors. We are already miles behind and that is for workers who have English as their first language and who are aware of their employment rights but that may not be the case for this group of workers.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission wrote to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment stating that seasonal permit holders face increased vulnerability to exploitation and the sectors where seasonal permits are present are high-risk sectors for trafficking and labour exploitation. I do not know why we are trying to meet this sector halfway or even further than halfway. I do not believe these permits are needed. People who work in the area of human rights, in trade unions and in advocacy say it is an automatic flag for exploitation. Sometimes it is good to be out of step with what others are doing. Sometimes it is good to provide leadership in this area.
In the meat sector wages are going down year on year. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is monitoring it and so it can see the impact of wages going down. During the Covid pandemic a light was shone on meat factories and it was uncomfortable to see. These workers are working in intolerable circumstances. This is a group that is already being monitored. Adding to a group of vulnerable workers a group that is even more vulnerable is not a good idea. We have only 60 inspectors with 2.5 million people in work. We are already not at the races. I have not been convinced that the protections will be in place. I am not certain how they will work. As I said earlier, under the proposals the Minister of State is making these people will be here just long enough to be exploited and not long enough to get organised and vindicate their rights. That is a genuine concern, not just for me but also for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Migrant Rights Centre and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.
When there were demands to review the permit system for non-EEA workers interested in coming to Ireland to work in the private nursing home sector or in home care, I was very interested in the Department's response, a response that I welcomed at the time. The Department, to its credit, after undertaking a review reminded the sector of its obligations on pay, terms and conditions for the people who work in that sector. It pointed very pointedly to the issue of poor pay rates, poor conditions and so on, and why that was the fundamental issue as to why the sector could not retain staff and attract new staff.
I am assuming that the Department would have undertaken a similar exercise in assessing the demand for a scheme like this in the sectors that might be interested in accessing schemes of this nature. If it did such a review, while the Minister of State might not have all the information to hand, he might talk us through that. Has a conversation taken place with the industries that might access schemes of this nature? Have concerns been expressed? That should be the first conversation that should happen. Have the Minister of State and his officials expressed concerns about poor levels of pay, terms and conditions in the sectors that are relevant? What did they find and what did they determine from those conversations?
The best way of answering that is to say that this legislation provides for a seasonal permit. It does not grant it to any sector individually. We have the legislation and we have regulations. As with every other operation of the permits, if any particular sector is looking for access to permits, we go through exactly what Deputy Nash said about the home care sector. We analyse it, research it and work with the sector. That sector repeatedly came looking for permits over a couple of years. The unit pushed back very strongly. The evidence was not there to back that up. Employers in any other sector need to gather the evidence to show it is needed and is the only option. They also need to outline the changes they propose to make so that they are not reliant on permits forever into the future. Later today we will have the formal launch of that report and we will talk about it in the home care sector. A request has been submitted for permits in the short term while other measures are put in place. With the majority of sectors that approach is looking for permits. The same conversation goes on; the same analysis needs to happen. The relevant parent Department needs to be involved in making recommendations.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine has made this proposal for seasonal permits. The 2018 report highlighted that this was needed and that the evidence was there. We are providing for it in legislation and each employer needs to make the case for it. We are not giving a blank cheque to anybody to go and do this; they need to go through the process. That is why I suggested one way of doing this might be to trial it.
We believe there is a demand for it but that needs to be proven for each individual sector. We know that certain sectors only have seasonal work. We cannot expect somebody to have a full-time job for work that is only there for three months. We need to be honest about that. Seasonal work has traditionally happened. I fully accept that we need to put protections in place. However, we need to recognise that certain sectors cannot justify giving a 12-month contract. They need to make their own case. I am not here to speak for any particular sector. We are putting in place the option for a seasonal permit and then we can work through that process.
Many organisations have a view on this. I read what the International Organization for Migration had to say because I regard it as having expertise in this area. It has an office in Ireland and is represented throughout the world. It regards it as acceptable to have a seasonal permit but it is very clear that it needs to be with strong conditions attached. That is something we are prepared to do. I am prepared to work with the committee on that. I accept that people have a view on this. I am not here to change people's minds. I am here to explain why we think they are necessary. We are asking that there be an option in the legislation to reflect the 2018 review of economic migration policy which showed that there is a clear demand for a time-limited permission for lower skilled workers of a seasonal nature. This legislation came about on foot of that review group. I accept that this committee has consistently held the view that they are not needed, but there are other views on that as well.
To allay people's fears, I assure members that we will put all the protections in place. I am very happy to work with the committee on those. Of course, there will be ongoing monitoring. The WRC work plan for next year is on my desk. I need to look through it when I get a chance to see what it is requesting. We will try to respond to its requests on this and ensure the resources are there to strengthen its team and have inspectors in place. The WRC inspectors target certain areas of concern and that will give certain results. If we bring changes to this in any area and there are any concerns, of course, we can track them and assign the WRC greater responsibilities to focus on that if needs be.
However, we need to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of employers are good decent people who find it hard to attract staff. They are trying to run businesses and at different times of the year need people and need talent. They are willing to finance that to pay people and adhere to all the laws of the State and all the terms and conditions. We should not exclude them because there are areas of concern. We put in place protections to deal with those rogue employers like everybody else has. We need to recognise the majority are not rogue employers when we introduce legislation.
We will not persuade the Minister of State and he will not persuade us. The protections will not change the essence of the thing which is that a particular employee can bring in someone for a few months. They are absolutely tied to that employer. They cannot go elsewhere and at the end they must leave. Inherently that is rife for exploitation, particularly when we consider the industries involved here, the low rates of pay and some quite horrific conditions that exist.
Deputy O'Reilly referred to some of the stuff that was exposed during the Covid pandemic. All that is happening in the context of the WRC being greatly under-resourced. Despite what the Minister of State said, nobody believes the WRC will be properly resourced. He is not giving that commitment now and it was not given in the budget. It will not happen to a sufficient degree.
I just do not see the Minister of State bringing forward sufficient protections, in that context, that it will change the essence of what seasonal employment permits are.
If it eases the Deputy's concerns, we have engaged with the WRC specifically on the seasonal employment permits and how we can strengthen things to enable it to police this and manage it. The Deputy is assuming this will be abused. I have to defend the majority of employers and say this will not be abused and they will honour the terms and conditions.
I accept that the majority will not be a problem. It does not have to be 100%-----
Can I finish the point? The Deputy wants to have a law that penalises all the good employers. We want to allow for seasonal permits and track and monitor that to make sure everyone honours that and that protections are in place to try to prevent any move away from proper terms and conditions or poor treatment of people. Of course we will do that. We would do that for anyone who works in the State, whether for one month, two months, a year or two years. To be very clear, there will be the option to move employer. I said that at the start. I do not have the wording here but I will have it for Report Stage. We are putting that in place so people will not be tied to an employer. As the Deputy said, that will lessen the chance of poor terms and conditions. With the permit process, we try to engage with employers and have done so successfully in many cases in certain sectors. Their applications to avail of the permit process have very often strengthened the terms and conditions. In the home care sector, where there was a labour shortage, that led to new terms and conditions being brought forward there, because we refused to give a permit willy-nilly and said they had to put in place the proper terms and conditions. The seasonal employment permit will follow a similar system.
The Minister of State has acknowledged that extra protections are needed. He acknowledges that he has to engage with the WRC. There is an acceptance on his part that there are particular problems with seasonal work permits. Nobody at this committee has suggested that 100% of employers are involved. I do not think anyone is even suggesting that it is most employers but even if it is one, that is enough. The Minister of State is acknowledging that extra protections need to be in place and that there is a particular issue with seasonal work permits, namely, that they are open to exploitation. I do not think the Minister of State has a different issue with them than we would have. The difference is that I am not convinced by what the Minister of State is saying about the protections that will be there, and neither is the committee. It is in our report that there is a need for this. Has the Department identified the number needed or the deficiency that exists? Clearly this work is getting done at the moment. I have never been approached by a company that was closing or scaling back its operations for want of these work permits. Who exactly is desperately looking for them? What kind of numbers are we talking about?
I have tried to respond to the committee's concerns during pre-legislative scrutiny and the Second Stage debate. The committee has identified a major concern here. I acknowledge that in any employment, seasonal or non-seasonal, we have to have protections in place for employees. That is what we do. The committee members are the ones highlighting this as a concern so we are going beyond that to try to work with them on this and allay their concerns. I am concerned for all employees. I have to be, and I have to make sure protections are in place in the legislation. I believe they are there. We want to put people in no doubt about seasonal permits and we will go beyond that because it is something the committee is flagging as an area of concern.
Regarding the numbers needed, we do not look at any sector and predict what the numbers will be in three years' time. What we are trying to do with this legislation is make it more flexible, so we are able to respond to requirements in the years ahead. That was the ask of the 2018 report. Part of that response is having the option for a seasonal permit. That then has to be earned by a +
sector or an industry. They have to prove their case. We try to do reviews twice a year if we can. Other years it is once a year. We analyse the sectors that are under pressure for available talent and people, whatever the sector is. It could be nursing homes, hospitals or horticulture. Each time, there is an analysis of that sector to back up the arguments. The parent Department, whether it is involved in transport, agriculture or health, also has to back that up. We are involved in a number of interdepartmental groups. The team here does not make a decision on a whim. It is based on evidence. I am not saying what sectors will get these permits or how many are needed. They have to come forward. The option will be in the legislation to allow for a seasonal permit but clearly there are certain sectors that involve seasonal work. That is normal in many countries and it is normal here too. Sectors come to us.
The fact that permit numbers have jumped so much in the last few years shows the demand for talent. We have to respond that in different ways. Clearly, the best way is to invest in education and skills development in the long term to deal with these availability shortages locally and with people living in the country already, for all the benefits that will bring. However, in some cases there is a gap and businesses cannot service their own markets or cannot grow and expand because of the shortage of people. The permit system is there to respond to that, either where there is a shortage of people in some sectors or a shortage of a particular skill in another area. We try to analyse that and base the decision on evidence. That will continue with seasonal permits and non-seasonal permits. That is the system. A labour market assessment is part of all applications and certainly will be for seasonal workers as well. Sectors have to show that there is a need for this. We are allowing for it in the legislation and regulations but I am not saying one sector will automatically get these tomorrow. That is not the way it is going to work. That is not the way it works now. We are trying to make the system as flexible as we possibly can so the guys around me can do their job and respond in a timely manner so we do not get into a situation where there is a six-month waiting list for permits in a sector that needs workers badly. It could be in the public sector.
The three highest users of work permits are meat processing companies. The impact this has had is that workers' wages have not moved since 2017. For meat processors and deboners, they were set at €10.85 and €13.65, respectively. One of those will move but only because the minimum wage is moving. The wages in that sector have not moved since 2017. There has been wage movement in the public service and the private sector. You cannot help but draw a straight line between the fact that these are high users of employment permits and that they are using them to keep wages down. All the things people say could potentially happen, and the things that are red flags and causes for concern, appear to be happening in the meat sector. That is a sector that the Department is monitoring. Does the Minister of State see what I mean? It is monitoring it and watching it getting worse year on year. Inflation is rocketing ahead of where these wages are. These are the companies that are heavy users of the employment permit system that exists already and the Minister of State is talking about making it more flexible and expanding it. I am very concerned about the impact that is going to have, not just on workers' rights, which we have explored, but also on wages. This is working in the meat processing industry because the wages are not moving. We all know wages have moved. They have moved in the public sector and in the private sector, so there is wage movement. Companies are profitable and yet the only thing that has shifted is the wages of the very lowest paid workers because the minimum wage will move. Other than that, since 2017 these people have not seen any improvement in their wages in a sector the Department is monitoring. The Minister of State says it is going to monitor this but if it monitors the seasonal work permits in the same way it monitors the meat processors, that is going to work to suppress wages..
We are all on the same page with respect to exploitation and low wages and so on. I think the Minister of State agrees with us on that. We want to shine a light there and make sure that does not happen.
Amendment No. 17 proposes to allow non-consultant hospital doctors to move from one public hospital to another within a two-year timeframe and the Department would have to be notified if that happens. I just want to bring up the conditions of non-consultant hospital doctors and the hours they work. If the reports are to be believed, they are really long. I am not sure anybody can perform to the highest possible level if they are working for 36 hours straight, especially if somebody is coming at you with a scalpel or whatever. That is something that really needs to be looked at.
On the other issue, if we get rid of seasonal work where somebody could come in here for a number of months or weeks to do a certain job, the alternative is that people come in and stay here and work full-time. They probably will not get work in those sectors and it may mean the sectors close down as they cannot actually operate at all. That would be a concern for me. For certain seasonal workers, this is what they do. They travel from country to country. Our job is to make sure that the conditions are good, that wages are good and that they are not exploited but still have the freedom to choose to come here if they want.
If we close the door on seasonal work completely, as some of my colleagues might be suggesting, it would mean the entire fruit, flower and other such industries would be in trouble. Will the Minister of State ensure that conditions and wages are at an acceptable level, that employees have the supports they need and that they have somewhere to go without fear if they have a complaint to make? It is very important that these mechanisms are put in place.
To be very clear, the mechanisms are in place but we must make sure there is guidance on accessing them. We dealt with amendments in this regard earlier. It is important there is a roadmap to getting the assistance. I have several comments to make on this. The freedom to choose is key, as are the protections that are available. On foot of discussions with the committee and others, we are trying to introduce flexibility to be able to move permits between employers. It would be a lot easier and quicker. It is something we are committed to doing. This is on foot of the discussions with the committee.
Terms and conditions are important. Deputy Stanton mentioned non-consultant hospital doctors. There is the working time directive. There are the terms in their contracts. We hear the stories and we speak to them also. The machinery of the State is there to deal with this through the WRC and the Labour Court. We also examine this when permits are issued.
By far the greatest user of permits is the healthcare sector and it is generally when it comes to doctors. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected but I believe I am right. The healthcare sector trumps all other sectors. It is not a case of one particular sector.
It is also healthcare assistants as well as doctors and nurses. There could be several thousand a year. During one year of Covid there were 4,500 medical-related permits. I want to put that information out there.
The legislation before us will allow for the automatic indexation of wages. There are particular sectors that traditionally obtain permits. We look at them and if we see in the most recent that the terms and wage rates are increasing all the time, we will have a view on that. It will be captured in the evidence. When a particular area is being assessed the intention is not to reduce wages. If we believe this is happening in certain sectors, it can be dealt with when permits are being reissued or in the next round of permits. We have seen this already with healthcare assistants. The ask from the sector was to put in place a wage mechanism of €23,000 or €24,000. Based on research on what was happening and what we thought was possible, we went as far as €27,500. Each sector is examined. Automatic indexation is part of what we are asking for in the new legislation and regulations.
To return to Deputy Stanton's point on terms and conditions, in recent years a lot of work has been done on access to the various entitlements. This has been led by the Tánaiste and the Department to put in place a journey to the living wage. In January, another massive increase in the minimum wage will kick in. Auto-enrolment of pension will also have an impact. There will be access to statutory sick pay legislation. There are many changes to strengthen the terms and conditions of employees. Anybody on a permit must follow these conditions at a minimum and go beyond them for certain sectors. I am committed to working with the committee and I will come back prior to Report Stage on the details of this. We can discuss it on Report Stage or with interested members of the committee prior to that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Page 9 of the Bill has a definition of a dependant as a foreign national who has been determined by the Minister to be a dependant other than a spouse or civil partner. Further on, the Bill mentions critical skills. Those here on an inter-company transfer are entitled to work but their partner or spouse is not. Quite often, they are here twiddling their thumbs. It would be unfair to prevent them from coming. Some of these people are highly skilled but they are barred from working. Has the Minister of State given this any consideration? I have raised the issue on several occasions with the Tánaiste and in parliamentary questions. I would like to return to it on Report Stage if the Minister of State does not have anything on it now. It is simply a matter of adding a line to the Bill. Perhaps it is there already and I have missed it. I cannot see it. The spouse or partner of a person who comes here on an inter-company transfer cannot work.
At present a spouse or partner is entitled to apply for a general employment permit. The position is that our permits are generally job specific. The issue of family reunification was raised on Second Stage. We are speaking to the Department of Justice about this from an employment point of view. We can update the committee on it on Report Stage.
The issue is that the spouse or partner of a person who comes here with a critical skills permit can work but the spouse or partner of someone who is here on an inter-company transfer cannot do so. They are very similar in many ways. I do not see why that is the case.
They generally apply for a general employment permit.
Deputy Stanton wants it to be the same as the critical skills permit.
I will take a look at this prior to Report Stage.
They are here. I have come across cases where such people have applied to work under a general employment permit and have not been allowed to do so. These people are highly skilled but they are not allowed to work.
I will take a look at this issue for Report Stage. We will discuss later the ability to use regulations to adapt quickly to certain scenarios and change policy quickly through regulations. I will certainty take a look at this for Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
We have discussed this matter already. I have been very clear in my opposition to facilitating the Minister of the day with the power to change and amend the employment permit system by way of regulation. The committee also outlined concerns as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny report. The report stated that while the general scheme aims to enable the employment permit system to respond quickly to changes in economic conditions, moves to prescribe rules in regulation rather than primary legislation could potentially undermine public scrutiny and transparency. For all of the reasons we discussed previously, this is an area that is fraught. I understand that one person's freedom to roam is another person's job insecurity. We have discussed all of the reasons we should be concerned about this. When I look at section 4 it seems this is a fairly limited request and something that could and should be facilitated. In the interests of transparency and openness this should be debated on the floor of the Dáil rather than providing that the Minister may change it by way of regulation.
The amendment proposes to delete section 4, which will remove the legislative basis for the Minister to make regulations on operational matters to enable the smooth functioning of the permit system and the facility required by the 2018 review with regard to migration policy to ensure the system remains fit for purpose. This was an ask in the review of 2018. The Minister would no longer have the power to make regulations on key operational matters, which would render the system inoperable. This is common in legislation. We believe certain functions are better off in regulations than in primary legislation. From the point of view of practical application by the departmental officials, it means they can do their job. It also means we can respond to the needs in any given year and make regulations as needs be to reflect them. These regulations can be rescinded by the Dáil within 21 days. I have given a commitment, and I do so again, to work with the committee on introducing regulations and to have conversations and agreement on bringing them forward.
I am not trying to do regulations and hide them away. This approach recognises that having everything detailed in primary legislation would make it very hard to do the job regardless of who is in Government or what Department is concerned. If there are regulations that members or the Dáil do not like, they can be rescinded. That is a feature of our law. It is not the case that regulations are never scrutinised. Regulations are generally subject to great scrutiny and public consultation. I am going beyond that in saying I am more than happy at any stage to discuss the regulations with this committee.
Nobody opposes regulations. I recognise there is a need for them in certain circumstances but not to bypass consultation and engagement with the Oireachtas or provide a facility to do so. I acknowledge the commitment given by the Minister of State but, with respect, that is his personal commitment. My concern is that there is no provision to compel the Minister to consult. This is not something that should be done in secret. I do not mean to make that sound worse than it is but this should be done in the fullest and most transparent way possible. That is not the case with regulations, although regulations are appropriate in many circumstances. We have flagged with the Minister of State all of the reasons we are concerned. We are talking about the potential for exploitation and for issues to arise. In such circumstances, we should rush to transparency rather than in the opposite direction. That comment is not directed at the Minister of State personally and I respect the personal commitment he has given but that is all he can give. Without providing for this in primary legislation, subsequent Ministers could happily come in here and say they had changed this by regulation and there would be no recourse because they did give a commitment as that commitment was given by another person.
The Deputy has made a fair point. I reaffirm that if such a scenario were to arise and the committee was unhappy with what was proposed in regulations, it would have the right to rescind them, as Deputies would when they came before the Dáil. That provision exists. The advice given when developing legislation is that regulations make the operation of schemes more flexible and, where possible, to provide for them in regulations rather than in primary legislation. Various Departments that I have been in have tied themselves in knots many times - I must get a list of those occasions, at some stage - by having something provided for in primary legislation. It means you cannot adapt to a situation or show any flexibility, even when everyone wants that to happen. Deputies could be on the floor of the Dáil demanding change but the change has to be made in primary legislation. That is why, in general, the legal advice is to provide for matters in regulations where possible. Again, the House still has powers in that regard.
The Deputy and I will continue to disagree. We have had this conversation already and I cannot change her mind. All the Departments work in a very open and transparent manner. Nearly every regulation is consulted on way beyond what happens in most democracies, which is good. I am not aware of any regulations that have been designed quietly in a back room without anyone being consulted and then brought forward to great surprise. That does not happen because that is not the way we operate as a country. Specifying that something has to be in primary legislation can delay progress on many occasions.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 37.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 18, to delete lines 34 to 37.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 19, to delete lines 3 to 8.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 19, to delete lines 12 and 13.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 19, line 17, after “(4)” to insert “and section 25(1)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
The section is opposed in an effort to get clarity as to whether the recommendation from the enterprise agency is on behalf of an employee working for that enterprise agency or an employee working for another employer. If it is the latter, it is not appropriate to allow enterprise agencies to lobby the Government in this regard because it opens up a certain element of exploitation, opens the system to abuse and perpetuates further inequities in the employment permit system. Similar provisions already exist in standing legislation but we should discuss this further. I want to hear the Minister of State's response to see if he can assuage my concerns. Does this provision relate to lobbying on behalf of an individual or an agency?
It is the latter. It is on behalf of the client company.
We oppose the Deputy's suggestion to amend the section. We regard the development agencies, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, as world leading organisations that do great work on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They have significant expertise in this area. The Government trusts them to deliver on their mission of attracting business to Ireland and helping businesses grow. Both agencies have been very successful in their mission. The recommendations they provide on individual employment permits are carefully considered and limited in number but are very important for their clients. Amending the section would have negative implications for IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland in terms of them delivering their objectives and on our work with them.
I was not expressing distrust. This is a belt and braces issue. My concern was that an agency would lobby on behalf of an employee working for another employer. That is where my confusion was. I will be happy to withdraw the related amendment. The Minister of State has indicated there will be further engagement. I believe we can tease out the matter as it appears there are no great differences between us.
It may be a misunderstanding.
Yes, and I think we can clarify the matter. I am fine with that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 25, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(a) allow the application to remain active and notify the applicant of the matters that are incomplete, and that the applicant has 30 days to submit the material necessary to rectify the incomplete aspects of the employment permit application;”.
My amendment relates to allowing a work permit application to remain active while a mistake is rectified. The process can be convoluted and cumbersome, and necessarily so. Workers and employers understand that the system must be robust and requires a certain amount of paperwork and oversight. My amendment facilitates some flexibility where a genuine mistake or an oversight has occurred to allow the application to remain active and gives the applicant 30 days to submit the material necessary to rectify any incomplete aspects of the employment permit application.
If the Minister of State is not minded to accept the amendment, I am happy to work with him. It is a case of snakes and ladders but maybe people should not always have to go back to the start and start over. My view is that something could be done, and applications would not have to be suspended completely but would remain active in cases where there has been a genuine mistake.
I recognise the Deputy's willingness to engage on this matter. We are concerned about what would happen if we accepted the amendment.
We are trying to discourage poor applications and have applications of a sloppy standard, which happens more often that it should. We are trying to discourage that. We try to triage in certain key areas and we would inform somebody if there is an obvious mistake or error. However, some of the applications coming forward are of a very poor standard and they should not be. We would not recommend putting in the 30 days because that is what we do at the moment and have allowed for that and it has caused a problem. It has caused additional administration and additional delays. We are trying to perfect the system and make it more efficient and that is what the ask of this review is. We will be putting in place new technologies as well. We will be able to deal with the Deputy’s concern in another way by capturing that area. Allowing an extra 30 days will not solve the problem the Deputy is trying to solve either.
The Minister of State appreciates the problem that I am raising.
I am happy to engage with the Minister of State on that. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment to allow for further discussions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 25, line 38, after “21,” to insert “25,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 26, line 1, to delete “An” and substitute “Subject to section 25, an”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 26, line 21, after “(8)” to insert “and section 25”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 28, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“(4) An employment permit shall include a contact list of the recognised trade unions operating in the sector in which the employment permit has been issued, contact details for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and contact details for the Workplace Relations Commission.”.
This amendment is straightforward and technical. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to oppose it. I suspect I am about to hear one but we will go with it anyway. It is to facilitate the inclusion on the employment permit the contact list of the recognised trade unions operating in the sector in which the employment permit has been issued, contact details for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and contact details for the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. Basically, these are places where workers, particularly vulnerable and migrant workers and the kind of workers we are specifically talking about, can go to get some assistance in vindicating their rights at work. We have had a lot of chat this morning in relation to protecting workers. This is a very practical step that could be taken to facilitate those workers in vindicating their rights at work.
I do not want to refuse this amendment because I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve here. There are parts of it that we would not fully support. However, I know exactly what the Deputy is trying to achieve and there is merit in it. At the moment, there is a summary of employment rights and the WRC details are on our permits. However, there probably is merit in what the Deputy said. We would be open to including the ICTU details. The issue we have is if we include a recognised list of trade unions, where does that end or who judges that? We could agree to look at the amendment again with the Deputy and perhaps take in the ICTU, because it is probably an umbrella for most of the unions, albeit not them all. If the Deputy is happy with that, that is something we could work on. That makes it straightforward enough. It gets very complicated if we use the other term.
I understood that when we were drafting it as well. The Minister of State will understand me. On the basis that I will engage with the Minister of State and we can work on an amendment that we can agree in this regard, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20
Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 28 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 28, to delete lines 36 and 37.
I believe these have already been discussed and I intend to withdraw amendments Nos. 14 and 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 29, lines 25 and 26, to delete “, seasonal employment permit”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 30, to delete lines 29 to 34.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 37, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“Employment of non-consultant hospital doctors by public health facility
25. (1) Where an application is made for the grant or renewal of an employment permit in respect of the employment of a foreign national as a non-consultant hospital doctor by a public health facility—
(a) the application shall be made by the public health facility proposing to employ the foreign national concerned,
(b) the period for which the foreign national concerned may be employed in the State pursuant to an employment permit granted or renewed in respect of such an application shall be a period of 2 years, and
(c) an employment permit referred to in paragraph (b) shall operate to permit the employment in the State of the foreign national concerned as a non-consultant hospital doctor by—
(i) the public health facility who made the application, or
(ii) any other public health facility who has made a notification to the Minister under subsection (2).
(2) Where, during the period for which an employment permit referred to in subsection (1)(b) is in force—
(a) the employment of the foreign national by a public health facility referred to in subsection (1)(c)(i) or (ii), for whatever reason, ceases, and
(b) another public health facility proposes to employ the foreign national as a non-consultant hospital doctor pursuant to such employment permit,
the public health facility referred to in paragraph (b) shall, within such period as may be prescribed in advance of the date of commencement of the proposed employment, notify the Minister of the matters referred to in subsection (3).
(3) A notification referred to in subsection (2) shall specify—
(a) the name of the public health facility proposing to employ the foreign national,
(b) the place at or in which the employment concerned is to be carried out,
(c) the terms and conditions, including the hours of work in each week, and the duration, of the employment concerned, and
(d) the remuneration and any deductions, where agreed, for board and accommodation or either of them in respect of the employment concerned.
(4) Upon receipt of a notification referred to in subsection (2), the Minister—
(a) may request such information and documents, as may be specified in regulations under section 43, in respect of the matters referred to in subsection (3),
(b) shall amend the particulars contained in the register in respect of the employment permit concerned to reflect the matters referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (b), and
(c) may, upon request made to him or her by the foreign national or the public health facility who made the notification, issue to the person who made the request an amended employment permit to reflect the matters referred to in subsection (3).
(5) In this section, “public health facility” means a publicly funded hospital or health facility, other than a nursing home, that provides services under Chapter II of Part IV of the Health Act 1970.”.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 25
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 37, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(2) The Minister shall refuse to grant an employment permit where in the 3 years preceding the day on which the application was made the person or employer who has made the offer of employment has been found in breach of equality and employment-related legislation.”.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 relate to not allowing employers that have been in found in breach of equality and employment-related legislation to apply again for an employment permit for a period of three years. It also relates to the use of board and accommodation as remuneration. We have all seen the fairly high-profile dismissals, sackings and lay-offs that are happening in companies where when you would talk to the workers previously they would tell you there is a pizza bar or an omelette station or something. I am always minded of the words of my granny, “If you work for food, you will never be idle.”
Amendment No. 18 is designed to ensure that an employment permit cannot be issued to an employer or a person who has been found in breach of equality and employment-related legislation in the three years preceding the day on which the permit application was made. Again, we are discussing at length workers who are vulnerable. If we are genuine about wanting to protect them, there should be a real deterrent to employers that breach the employment legislation and equality legislation. We have talked about the good work that the WRC does and it has recovered more than €1.6 million in stolen wages. By virtue of that, we know that all employers are saints. While nobody is suggesting that all employers are dying to get these permits in order that they can exploit workers, we need to put in as many safeguards here as we possibly can.
Again, on amendment No. 19, I have submitted this amendment to discuss the use of board and accommodation as payment. I am specifically looking for assurances that where board and accommodation are used as payment, it will be realistically benchmarked if it is a necessary part of the wages, although I fail to see why it would be necessary. In the event that it happens, there has to be a realistic benchmark. Someone cannot be docked €1,200 or €1,300 a month for shared accommodation in a mobile home halfway up the side of a mountain.
I am looking for an assurance from the Minister of State that the provision of board and accommodation will be overseen to ensure that where it is included as part of a package, the monetary value placed on it is reflective of the real value of board and accommodation and to confirm that if he cannot facilitate such oversight, then it cannot be part of it. If there is nobody checking on it, then the Minister of State knows himself. We are not talking about the vast majority, we are talking about a small few but even if it is one, it is enough.
Not recently, but when I was working in the union, I saw conditions where people were living. I will not even say what one would not put living in it. The Minister of State knows what I am talking about. Those people were getting docked out of their wages for living in appalling circumstances. Nobody expects canteen-style food but there was no nutrition in the food that they were getting. It was muck. That already exists. It is not all employers; it is a very small number of employers. However, even if it one, we should be trying to ensure that we limit the circumstances where food and lodging is regarded as part of the wages and that it is overseen in order that people on very low wages are not getting money docked from their wages to facilitate what is substandard board and substandard accommodation.
I get what Deputy O'Reilly is coming at and I agree. I think it is right. However, there is a problem with the amendment as it is worded.
If an employer decides to be generous and dock a nominal amount from the wages, this amendment could prevent that from happening. There may be a problem with the wording. I agree with Deputy O'Reilly's sentiment but the other side of the coin has not been looked at. The assumption has been made that the employer will be in the negative all the time, which might not necessarily be the case.
I accept that. If the Minister of State is willing to work with me, this could be changed. I think the point I am trying to make is appreciated. I accept that the wording could be problematic. That is fair enough. Perhaps we can work on that. The principle of amendment No. 18 is about employers that have found to be in breach of the law. They should not be rewarded with another payment within three years. Amendment No. 19 relates to board and lodgings. I appreciate the point Deputy Stanton is making and that we might need to tighten up the wording. While I reserve the right to resubmit a similar amendment on Report Stage, I am happy to engage with the Minister of State. There is a fair amount of engagement on the agenda anyway. I would be happy to add this to our agenda if the Minister of State appreciates the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to rule out any employer that might want to do better. That was not the intention. I appreciate Deputy Stanton making the point. I am reminded of what my granny would say if she was here, which is that if one works for food, one will never get any rest.
I will address the two amendments. Our intention would have been not to accept amendment No. 19 because of its wording and also because figuring out how to operationalise, monitor and control it would have been difficult. I understand the sentiment. I know Deputies O'Reilly and Stanton and others will agree. We can look at that when we are dealing with the protections on Report Stage. At the moment, we already have measures to protect lower-wage permit holders from being overcharged for board and accommodation. Any accommodation deductions cannot result in the net salary paid falling below the minimum threshold for the permit type. In addition, for certain roles with a salary under the €30,000 threshold, such as a meat processing operative or horticulture worker, there is a specific requirement that the minimum annual remuneration threshold be in addition to the provision of suitable accommodation.
I think the concern here is about whether accommodation is suitable and so on. I will look at that with the Deputies to see what we can do. It might not be in our gift as a Department to police that element or to link it to the market value, as the Deputy suggests, but I will talk to various Departments to see if we could do more in that area to allay concerns and fears. Nobody wants the situation that the Deputy described. That is not what is envisaged at all. Is that okay for now? I cannot agree to it. I know the Deputy is not pressing it because we will engage further about it. We will see if we can do more on that.
The proposal in amendment No. 18, regarding equality legislation, is unnecessary in our view. We are confident that foreign nationals are protected in the same way as Irish workers by virtue of the existing equality legislation and penalties contained therein. Under the Employment Permits Act, the Minister may refuse an application where either the employer or employee has received a conviction under the employment permit or employment rights legislation in the previous five years. Changing this to three years would restrict our ability to review this. I know that is not what the Deputy meant. At the moment, there is a five-year period rather than a three-year period. Discretion to review, rather than a mandatory review as proposed, is necessary, since each case should be judged on its merits, taking into account mitigating factors and changes put in place to address any breach to ensure it cannot recur in the interim. Discretion is also necessary where a blanket refusal may have unintended consequences, such as preventing current workers from renewing their permits even though they are innocent parties. We think discretion should remain and that it is covered already for up to five years.
I believe it needs to be automatic to act as a deterrent. The evidence from the WRC shows that where it inspects places, it uncovers breaches. Providing discretion means the employer is effectively entering into a negotiation with the Department, which I do not think is healthy or appropriate. It minimises the extent to which people can be lobbied about it too. I feel it should be automatic. That would send a loud and clear message to employers about where the Government is with regard to exploitation. For that reason, I will press the amendment.
We will oppose it but we can see if there is any way to find some middle ground relating to penalties. We are concerned that there is no room for discretion, which can have unintended consequences. I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve. I accept that she is looking for the impact and message this would send out. While I am not accepting the amendment, we can see if there is another way to achieve that strong message.
We are seeking the deterrent element.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 41, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(6) The Minister may refuse to grant an employment permit in the case of the payment of board and accommodation where the monetary value of the board and accommodation is not reflective of the market value of the board and accommodation.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 45, line 15, to delete “An” and substitute “Subject to section 25, an”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 46, line 20, after “section,” to insert “section 25(1)(b),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 46, line 38, to delete “The” and substitute “Subject to section 25, the”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 47, line 24, after “25” to insert “(other than subsection (7))”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 47, line 24, to delete “subsections (3) and (4)” and substitute “subsection (3)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 48, to delete lines 10 to 21.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 48, line 40, to delete “without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing” and substitute “subject to subsection (3)”.
This amendment to section 32, which provides for additional grounds for refusing to renew an employment permit. Specifically, subsection (1)(d) will be subject to a new subsection (3), which is added by amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 27 inserts a new subsection (3), which allows a Minister to renew an employment permit which is already in force even if the law under which the permit was issued has now become ineligible. This is for fairness and predictability for the employer and employee about the benefit of a permit that is already in force and recognises that removal of a role from an eligible list is not retrospective, because if there is sufficient labour supply for a role, that includes labour supply due to permits already in force. If employees are looking to renew permits that are already in place, this is only fair to them. This does not apply to the grant of permits but just to renewal.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 49, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(3) The Minister may, notwithstanding subsection (1)(d), renew an employment permit in respect of an employment that—
(a) at the date of the grant of such permit was an employment, specified in regulations under section 40, in respect of which an employment permit may have been granted or fell within a category of employment specified in regulations made under section 40 for which an employment permit may have been granted, and
(b) at the date of the application for the renewal, is an employment, or falls within a category of employment, specified in regulations made under section 40 as an employment or category of employment for which an employment permit shall not be granted.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 49, to delete lines 17 and 18.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 29 and 33 are related, and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 49, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
“Changing employer
33. (1) A foreign national that has been granted an employment permit shall be permitted to change employer—
(a) after an initial period of 12 months has elapsed since the foreign national concerned first commenced employment in the State pursuant to an employment permit granted to him or her, or
(b) in instances where it has been demonstrated that that the foreign national has suffered exploitation, or any other unforeseen circumstances as determined by the Minister in regulation.
(2) A foreign national shall be required to notify the Minister of the change of employer through a notification procedure as determined by the Minister in regulation and shall not be required to complete a new employment permit application.”.
These amendments relate to the lack of support and flexibility for workers to change employer without applying for a new employment permit. It is a failing within the current system. The amendment seeks to change it. It will allow workers to change employer via a simple notification procedure, while remaining under their existing permits under the current system. The only way to change employer is to have a whole new application for a new employment permit. We know this is not a realistic option for the majority of employment permit holders since it requires a €1,000 fee, a labour market needs test for the position and a long waiting time, among other things. The proposed change removes the obligation for a new application and makes it a realistic option for everyone without fundamentally changing the system.
The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland has stated that such a change would give workers increased mobility, which would protect them from exploitation while also improving pay and conditions for all the workers in the sector, thus preventing a raise to the bottom and, it has to be said, rewarding good employers. If the workers have a choice to go or stay, they will stay where they are being treated decently and where they are not, will have the facility to go. This amendment does not fundamentally change the employment permit system. Under such a change there would be no need for a new application when the worker moves job. If they have already satisfied these conditions when they applied initially, they cannot move within the first 12 months other than in extreme circumstances. A worker still needs to renew the permit as normal when it expires, so there will be no loss of income or anything for the Department. Again, this is something that will facilitate workers where there are issues around exploitation and they will be able to move. At the moment, if they are being exploited, they are effectively tied to that employer, which I think is wrong.
The rationale for this is very simple. It is to shift more power to the worker as opposed to the employer. It gives workers mobility and the ability to walk away from a bad exploitative employer and move somewhere else without all of the barriers that currently exist. It would reward good employers because it would mean people would stay with them as a consequence of them being good employers, it would be an incentive for them to be good employers, and it would prevent a race to the bottom. It does not fundamentally alter the nature of the employment permit system. Instead, it just strengthens the relative position of the workers within this. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's response.
I also see the merit in this amendment. We are well past the point where we would have indentured workers who are in some way tied to an employer. I know employers have to demonstrate they have looked for recruits elsewhere and they have to place some ads. The 12-month period is reasonable in that the employer at least gets some continuity for the period and the effort that was put in, but this is trying to strike a reasonable balance and it makes sure people who are being exploited have the opportunity to move on and are not trapped in the way the committee, when we discussed this with witnesses, felt was a genuine problem. There is a lot of merit in this approach and I am interested to hear the Minister of State's response.
My amendment No. 33 is included in this grouping. The purpose of my amendment is similar if not the same as the purpose of Deputies O'Reilly's and Murphy's amendment in that I want to see the creation of a new right for general permit holders to change their employment for any reason in lieu of the current relatively restrictive proposal in section 38 that allows a permit holder to change employment only if made redundant. I am proposing that a worker with a permit who loses or leaves a job can move to another job and all that is required is for the holder simply to notify the Minister and the Department of that. That would mean there would no requirement to make application for a new permit to move jobs. We know the argument in favour of that. It increases mobility and protects the worker from exploitation. It is too difficult and there are too many barriers in place at present - financial, administrative and otherwise - for people who wish to change employment. There is a huge power imbalance. Deputy Bruton is right that we should be moving beyond the stage of anything that might be described as indentured employment or bonded labour. We are way beyond that and any society that has any claim to be progressive should move away from that notion. Currently, the system insists that a permit holder can only change employer by applying for a new permit. There are money issues there, along with financial barriers, a fear of immigration status being lost and so on. I draw the attention of members to the situation in Spain as an example. There are no new applications required, no restrictions and people can move to any job. In a modern progressive economy, that is the direction in which we need to be going.
I am generally in favour of the thinking behind this. We had this discussion in the committee and had quite a number of representations on it. One of the things we have to be careful about is that our employment permit system at the moment is designed to cater for specific skills where there are needs, and that is fine. However, if somebody comes into the country under such a permit, are we saying then they can move to any area at all of the economy? We have to be careful. I have seen this in other jurisdictions where people come into one area, stay there for a short period and switch to something more lucrative. They are then possibly displacing workers as well, so there are other issues going on. We have to be careful of that happening. The 12-month time period might actually help there. It needs to be thought out in case of unintended consequences such as I have described.
There is also the issue of the cost involved. Is there a cost to the employee? I know there are certain costs involved in applying and so forth. If somebody comes in to one employer who has paid the costs and they move to someone else, is there some issue with cost there or is there reimbursement involved? There are a few things like that.
We have to be careful that somebody does not set themselves up as an agent to bring people here on an employment permit and get paid for it, either over or under the table, and then the person moves off somewhere else. It becomes a kind of gateway through which workers can come in for employment. We have to watch that as well.
Generally speaking, the thinking behind what my colleagues have brought forward is right but we probably need to tease it out a little bit more. I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say.
As I referenced in my opening speech, this an area where we are prepared to see if we can get to a better place. I think we all agree with the sentiments being put forward. We had good discussions at pre-legislative scrutiny, on Second Stage, and with some stakeholders and staff from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. I have asked officials to look at this again to see how we can deal with the concerns and sentiments around the time period. Is the 12-month period right or can we go with a little bit less? There needs to be some period of time just to protect everybody, but maybe 12 months is excessive and we are willing to look at that. There is also the issue of the ability to move more easily with a permit from an employer. The transfer from one employer to another is something we are prepared to look at.
I do not have wordings ready that I can put forward here but I will have them for Report Stage and we can make some good progress that will reflect the thinking. There is a general sense we have from nearly everyone who has contributed to this legislation, so we will try to reflect that. That is our aim. Officials have been working on it for the past couple of weeks but we just do not have it ready. We are on the same page. I will be able to show how far I can bring that with amendments and see what the members think.
Regarding amendment No. 33, part of that keeps the status quo because we do try to allow for situations where someone is being exploited while keeping the 12 months. There is movement there anyway. We are on the same page here and I will bring back some recommendations on Report Stage if that is all right. We will catch most of the members' sentiments. It will involve changing our systems as well to be able to do the processing and IT and all that, but we are starting to engage with a new IT system on this. There is a chance to get his right.
I am reminded of the words of Alan Partridge when he says surprise me in rehearsals. Could we get sight of those recommendations? I thank the Minister of State's officials because I know a huge amount of work has gone into this-----
-----and I am conscious we are adding work as we are going along.
I am conscious that Report Stage might be too far, so when we have them ready, even before Report Stage, I am happy to tease through them with people who want to do so because we would like to get it right. We are nearly there but we want to get this right. Again, the Deputy will understand it will take us a little bit of time to adjust our systems to reflect the changes if we do get to that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 33
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 51, line 1, to delete “section 17(2)(b),” and substitute “section 17(2)(b) or, where applicable, section 25(1)(c),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 53, line 19, to delete “If” and substitute “Subject to subsection (6), if”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 54, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(6) Subsection (1) shall not apply to the termination or cessation of the employment of a foreign national by a public health facility pursuant to an employment permit referred to in section 25(1)(b) where a notification referred to in section 25(2) has been made to the Minister by another public health facility proposing to employ the foreign national within the period referred to in that section.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 33:
33. In page 55, after line 40, to insert the following:
“Change of employer
38. (1) This section applies to a foreign national to whom a general employment permit has been granted and who wishes to change employment during the period for which the employment permit is in force.
(2) If the employment of a foreign national pursuant to an employment permit is terminated by the employer or the holder of the permit or otherwise, for whatever reason, ceases, the holder of the permit may secure—
(a) an employment that is the same type of employment for which the employment permit referred to in subsection (1) was granted, or
(b) a different employment to the one for which the employment permit referred to in subsection (1) was granted that-
(i) is specified in regulations under section 40 as an employment for which a general employment permit may be granted, or
(ii) is not an employment that is specified in such regulations as an employment for which a general employment permit shall not be granted or that falls within a category of employment for which such an employment permit shall not be granted.
(3) A foreign national to whom this section applies shall notify the Minister of the dates of termination of the first employment concerned and of commencement of the second employment concerned, within a prescribed period and the notification shall be in such form and include such information as may be prescribed.”.
I am happy to withdraw this amendment on the basis of the Minister of State's response to Deputies O'Reilly and Murphy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
My comments on the section relate largely to points that have already been made. The pre-legislative scrutiny report stated that while the general scheme aims to enable an employment permit system to respond quickly to changes in economic conditions, moves to prescribe the rules and regulations rather than primary legislation could potentially undermine public scrutiny. We have already had a discussion on this. I have not changed my position and I suspect the Minister of State has not changed his either.
We have yet to do that, but we will keep trying.
An issue was brought to my attention recently about the children of workers who come here and when they go past the age of 18. They are treated as adults and a completely different approach is taken. In some instances these young people are in college or school and they may actually have to pay the full whack. They do not get any benefits at all because they are not seen to be under the European Union system. Will the Minister of State look at this because it could act as a barrier to people coming here to work, and certainly when they come here it can put them under an awful lot of financial pressure if more expenses are generated for their children. When the Minister of State is making regulations, perhaps it is something he might consider. It is probably stretching it a bit I know.
In fairness to the Deputy, he has made the case previously. It is not fully in our gift with this legislation as there is a crossover with the Department of Justice. It is part of the discussion we are having with it. I will come back to the Deputy on it. It might be part of a wider change but I will certainly come back.
There is an issue when a person is applying for a work permit and applying for the visa. Is there talk of bringing those two together?
That is correct. We have been engaging with them for a number of months now to see how we can try to align our processes, streamline them and work closely together. There is no point in one of us achieving a good result and the other Department getting bogged down in the system. It can happen either way. We are trying to align our systems and processes so we can streamline the application, make it easier for the user, and make it as efficient as we can timewise. There is ongoing work happening in that regard. It will probably result in a public consultation together in this space at some stage in the next year, which might help to frame further changes.
It would be very welcome if the Minister of State could make that happen.
I echo that, and particularly in the case where a family has college-age kids, which can be very expensive indeed and made more so by virtue of the fact they are outside of the system.
I have those two points-----
About streamlining the system and the work permits. I thank the Minister of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 70, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(6) The Minister may, in respect of the notification referred to in section 25(2), make regulations under this section specifying-
(a) the information and documents to be provided to the Minister that relate to the matters referred to in section 25(3),
(b) the form in which the notification under section 25(2) is to be made, and
(c) the procedure for the making of that notification.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 44 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 52
Amendment No. 37 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 79, line 17, to delete “2 years” and substitute “6 years”.
On the basis of the clarification provided by the Minister of State's Department I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53
Amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 42 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 80, line 37, after “Síochána” to insert the following:
“, inspectors from the Workplace Relations Commission, Labour Court, the Department of Social Protection, the Revenue Commissioners”.
This amendment is straightforward enough. It provides that not only shall an employer not penalise or threaten penalisation against a worker for making a complaint to a member of An Garda Síochána or the Minister that a provision of this Bill is not being complied with, but they shall not threaten to penalise or penalise an employee for making a complaint to an inspector from the Workplace Relations Commission, Labour Court, the Department of Social Protection or, indeed, the Revenue Commissioners.
I will speak to the other two amendments also as they are grouped together. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 seek to ensure information held by the Minister for the purposes of this Bill may be supplied by the Minister to the Workplace Relations Commission as well as to the Minister for Social Protection, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Revenue Commissioners or An Garda Síochána, whichever is appropriate.
There have been instances in the past where inquiries have been undertaken by, for example, the Workplace Relations Commission that have led to the delaying or the holding up of work permits being issued. I would stress the need for any such inquiries to be expedited. For instance, if someone makes a false accusation against an employer and, as a result, an inquiry is instigated, while that inquiry is ongoing, any application for work permits is stalled. Everyone, therefore, is on hold and in a way is suffering. The business cannot go ahead and may be under pressure. The employee may be trying to come in from abroad and cannot do so, and perhaps is waiting on tenterhooks and may go elsewhere. I emphasise that if any inquiry is ongoing, it should not interfere with the work permit process or should be expedited so that this whole thing is not delayed. I have come across a few such instances. I can understand why it happens but it is something about which we need clarity. Employers should be told pretty quickly if a complaint is made against them. They should be informed very quickly, for natural justice reasons if nothing else. If somebody makes a complaint against the Minister, the Minister should be informed about who makes a complaint, why it has been made and what it is. We must not have something bubbling away in the background that is causing a problem to the company. I feel strongly about that and it is something we must tighten up on.
There is balance there. Nobody is suggesting that everybody in this scenario will behave like an angel. It is a case of balancing it out and maybe tipping it a little bit in favour of the worker in some instances, given he or she is the vulnerable person coming from outside. I take Deputy Stanton's point as well.
For now, I must oppose amendment No. 39. I am waiting on some legal advice on it. We are keen to work on all recommendations that will further deflect employees from making unnecessary complaints. I am waiting to take legal advice. We will oppose it for now but we will give consideration to it on Report Stage. I am not in a position to take it now. I hope the Deputy understands that.
On amendment No. 41, we will oppose the amendment because the information can already be shared with WRC inspectors operating as agents for the Minister without the need to be specifically included in this list. We do not believe it needs to be specified because it is there, and similarly with amendment No. 42.
I will withdraw amendment No. 39, and I thank the Minister of State. We will be happy to engage once the legal advice is received.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 53 agreed to.
Sections 54 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 84, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“Atypical Working Scheme for Nurses
57. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where a foreign national—
(a) has been offered a contract of employment to work as a nurse in the State, and
(b) has been given leave to enter the State pursuant to the scheme established by the Minister for Justice known as the Atypical Working Scheme for Nurses, for the purpose of completing a clinical adaptation programme or aptitude test as specified in the scheme,
the foreign national is deemed to have been given a general employment permit of one year’s duration.
(2) A general employment permit deemed to have been given under subsection (1)—
(a) does not entitle the foreign national, unless and until he or she is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland to do so, to work as a nurse, and
(b) entitles the foreign national to work—
(i) in an employment that is ancillary to employment as a nurse (such as a healthcare assistant), where registration pursuant to any enactment is not a condition of such employment, and
(ii) in a different employment that—
(I) is specified in regulations under section 40 as an employment for which a general employment permit may be granted, or
(II) is not an employment that is specified in such regulations as an employment for which a general employment permit shall not be granted or that falls within a category of employment for which such an employment permit shall not be granted.
(3) A foreign national to whom this section applies shall notify the Minister of the commencement of any employment concerned, within a prescribed period and the notification shall be in such form and include such information as may be
prescribed.”.
The Minister of State will be familiar with the Department of Justice atypical working scheme for nurses who have been offered contracts of employment. The situation is as follows. They come to Ireland. In most cases they need to do a clinical adaptation programme or aptitude test. The regulations are governed by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. I am told by nursing unions that a worker who comes here often may not meet the criteria or the thresholds in the first few months. That creates problems. Such workers cannot work or can work only as nurses. There is an issue with recruitment and retention of healthcare assistants. It would be logical if measures could be taken to address this situation in order to ensure that those who are here could continue to work in our health service and would be given essentially an employment permit and all the rights that would come with that, that is, a general employment permit to allow them to address those accreditation and clinical adaption programme issues. This is an anomaly that might not have been predicted when this scheme was introduced. To the best of my recollection, it was introduced in 2014. A case could be made for reverting to the previous situation or accepting this amendment or, at least, the spirit of the amendment. I am happy to work with the Minister of State on the amendment if he believes it can be finessed to some degree, but I think he will understand the principle of the issue. It ought to be addressed.
Part of the resolution to this is more resources for the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland, NMBI, in order that they can do their work more quickly and people are not left waiting around. I appreciate the point Deputy Nash makes. I have a concern about qualified nurses working for lower wages but I understand the Deputy's point. This is not ideal. If the paperwork could be completed and the nurses could be ready to go, that would be ideal. They are obviously working as nurses when they are being preceptored on the wards. That is a different scenario from the adaptation period. I think that is more than adequately dealt with. However, there is a problem processing the paperwork. I am not certain this amendment would fix it but I appreciate the intention and I would certainly welcome being part of that discussion. I am aware of this issue. I am not sure this amendment would fix it, but it does need to be fixed.
I am not fully aware of what the issue is. I do not think the amendment is necessary because the people concerned have access to that general permit already. It is more a process issue or something like that. I am happy to tease this through with Deputies Nash and O'Reilly. That is no problem at all. I do not see the need for the amendment, but if we are missing something we will certainly try to tidy it up or capture it. Maybe we could have a chat about it first to see what is going wrong because I am not sure we are fully aware of the concerns raised. We will tease through the matter through with the Deputies if they so wish. Then, if the Bill needs to be amended, of course we will do that. However, it might be just an ongoing processing issue. I will not discuss the matter fully with the Deputies here but will discuss it with them-----
May I come in there? I think the issue may be with the registration paperwork. There are nurses and, in particular, care assistants, coming into the State under employee permits who are waiting six to eight months to have their paperwork approved before they can be taken on by the HSE, even though they have the permits to come here. It seems daft, and nurses are ending up operating as healthcare assistants because they cannot get their registrations. This extends to other medical professionals. It is just a constant problem of trying to get qualifications and registration paperwork, the Philippines being a case in point, that has been deemed to have been approved for the permit, yet it is not being accepted here by the medical authorities. I think that is essentially what is at issue.
To be helpful, my understanding of this is that qualified nurses from another jurisdiction, a non-EEA country, who come here are here on the atypical working scheme until such time as they are accredited, have satisfied the conditions set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland and can receive that accreditation.
The scheme is designed for them when they are training here, as opposed to qualified nurses coming here, but there is obviously something here we need to address.
I do not think it needs a legislative amendment, but we will-----
I am told there is an issue. It is something about establishing their principles over here. My understanding - I hope to be corrected on this - is that there has been some engagement, some correspondence, with the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation with the Department at some level. I am happy to sit down and engage with the Minister of State on that. There may very well have been communication with the Department of Justice too. The Minister of State understands the principle of what we are trying to achieve here and what the issue might be. I am open to a conversation about sitting down with the stakeholders to have this addressed because I am told that it is an issue. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis-----
We will have a discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 57 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.
Sections 61 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending today's meeting. I look forward to the Bill being enacted and implemented as soon as possible. I thank the staff who have worked here since 9.30 a.m. We have gone over the time limit we had but we did so in order that we would not have to have a second session.
Bill reported with amendments.
