Amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 16 is related. It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 16 together, by agreement.
Employment Permits Bill 2003 [ Seanad ] : Committee and Remaining Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 5, after "Minister" to insert "to the employee".
I am pleased the three amendments are being discussed together because they are similar. My amendment seeks to rectify the unacceptable situation where work permits would be issued by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the employer rather than to the employee. I will not elaborate on this because we have had a good discussion on it on Second Stage. It is certainly clear that Members on this side of the House are very favourably disposed to the idea. The Bill as it stands makes the worker absolutely dependent on the employer, and employers could actually threaten to have a worker deported or to have his passport confiscated. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
My amendment and that of Deputy Morgan seek to initiate a debate and make the Minister reflect on the massive increase in the number of migrant workers that have entered the country in the past four and a half years and the manner in which this is dealt with through the employer mechanism. Section 2 of the Bill refers to the necessity of work permits and the sanctions to be imposed if one does not have one. During the Second Stage debate, colleagues referred frequently to individuals from different cultures, with a different language and perhaps no English, who are in an extremely dangerous and vulnerable position because of some unscrupulous employers. Trade union colleagues, particularly in SIPTU and the Irish Nurses Organisation, feel that because of many cases that have come before them, we need to initiate a system in which the worker would be the recipient of the work permit to prevent indentured labour, or bonded serfdom as I think my party leader called it this morning.
While looking at recruitment agency websites, I noticed that some workers created their own little sites looking for work in Ireland. It seems there are many people who would like to make their own way both within the ten applicant countries and outside the European economic area. The officials who briefed us earlier made the point that the employee is put at an enormous disadvantage even after a year and throughout the permit renewal process. That may well be improving because of the work of the Department and the Minister but it still seems to be the case. I have asked the Minister to consider an individual-based approach, particularly because people may link up with companies in Ireland in the transition period of seven years which pertains to the eight countries. People should have an input into their careers.
If one looks at our own tradition of emigration, one will see that we are very much an emigrant people. Our previous President, Mrs. Robinson, used to refer frequently to the Irish diaspora throughout the world and to our emigration to a few countries in particular over recent centuries. It is right that people are allowed to seek work, make it on their own and not be forced into indentured labour, as happened several hundred years ago. I urge the Minister to consider inserting "granted to the employee, which shall not be limited to employment by a particular employer" after "permit" in section 2(1), line 5. This would create the grounds for people leaving one job to seek another and prevent the recurrence of outrageous events such as that which I mentioned on Second Stage in which a group of Moldovan workers ended up in Mountjoy Prison for not having work permits when the meat company in which they were employed suffered a major downturn. I urge the Minister to rethink her approach, preferably in this Bill, or, at the very least, in the major Bill she has promised to bring before this House for the past four years.
We fully support the Labour Party amendment. One would have to be very naive not to think it outrageous that an employer could have total control over whether an employee could have a job or whether he or she would have to leave the country. Employees in such circumstances are bound to be under fierce pressure to work more hours and to work for less money at times and are in constant fear of losing their jobs and of not being allowed to remain in the country. We must remember that most of these people are extremely vulnerable. They are not totally familiar with the language and definitely not familiar with employees' rights. If we do not deal with this problem urgently, more abuses of the system will crop up on a daily basis. I urge the Minister to deal with it as soon as possible.
I am not in a position to accept this amendment for the reasons I outlined in my response to the Second Stage debate. I have given much thought to this issue and if I thought the amendment would work, I would be very anxious to accept it. The reality is that 3,000 to 3,500 people changed employer last year. It is not difficult to do so if one comes here. If one is not treated well, one can move on to another job and get another permit. Some people come here with a permit and often go to FÁS to look for a different job before going to the employer who got the permit for them in the first place.
It would be difficult to accept what the Deputies are suggesting because we would have to answer the following questions. To whom should we issue permits and on what basis? How many should we issue? Should we give quotas to countries? If so, which countries? For how long may a person seek a job if we grant him a permit and he comes here? What do we do if a person does not find a job within a reasonable period? Can families travel immediately? If so, who is responsible for their subsistence here? What impact would such a programme have on the housing market, particularly at the lower end? The reality is that we issue working visas at the moment to certain skilled personnel in the IT sector, building professionals, such as engineers and architects, and nurses and medics. We do so because they are unlikely to be out of work for a long time and if they become unemployed it is usually only for a short period. Therefore, it is much easier to issue permits in such circumstances.
Additionally, there would be a huge administrative burden if the amendment was accepted because I anticipate, given the interest in Ireland around the world, that there would be many thousands of applicants. I heard recently from an embassy official in China that about 50,000 or 60,000 Chinese people applied for a visa to come to Ireland last year. I do not know how we would be able to control this and on what basis officials in my Department could decide who should receive visas or permits. Huge bureaucracy would be generated.
When enlargement takes place it will bring in between 70 million and 80 million more people. Countries such as Romania and others will join subsequently. I do not envisage there will be much need for permits then. We should be able to fulfil the needs of the Irish labour market from the wider European Union, when people will be able to come freely and work in this economy.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments. I understand the motivation of the Deputies and it is something I had applied my mind to some time ago. When one looks at the difficulties it would cause and the problems it would raise I believe the current system is the best. We genuinely offer new permits to those who have been either badly treated or who may want to move to another employer. It is not difficult, if a person can find another job, to get a permit to work in this country.
In essence, we are asking the Government to put in place a comprehensive immigration policy. The experience of the past four or five years, with people seeking asylum, students seeking work and, above all, people seeking work permits, indicates that perhaps we need a fundamental review of the Minister's Department and of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The Minister rejects the idea that we could have an Irish green card, for example, and a quota type system. Nevertheless, when one looks at the whole range of people coming to the country one sees many people who are economically motivated. They are out to make a new life for themselves and their families, just like our people did in so many countries around the world in past decades. It is a fair enough objective but in terms of the cohesion of our community and the integration of people who settle among us, perhaps it would be better, as my colleague, Deputy Howlin, proposed a couple of years ago, to seriously examine such a system. We see the pattern. I referred this morning to the non-EEA countries with whom we already have a relationship of three or four years. There are certain countries – even among the eight there are Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – where there is a preference to come to this country. It is something I urge the Minister to look at seriously.
I commend the Minister on her Department's website. It is very helpful to be able to see all the companies that have been granted work visas. The figures I quoted this morning were for the month of January. The website enables us to have a transparent system and I know the tremendous efforts made by the work permits system in recent times. One of the Department's documents advises employers to make renewal applications one month in advance of the expiry date. Employers are warned that applications received after this will be refused, in which case the whole system must start again. That type of rule seems to clash with other comments in the document.
Workers – I include those looking for renewal of permits – can be faced with unacceptable delays and the Minister should consider, in justice and humanity, a system based on individuals and not on companies. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Without adopting these amendments how would people be facilitated if they came to this country to set up their own businesses and were, themselves, employers? I am referring to entrepreneurial people to whom the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment alludes in its title. How would such people be facilitated without the adoption of these amendments? I have only been a Member of this House for nine or ten months, and maybe the Minister will stand up in the next few minutes and say she is fully accepting these amendments and we will all live happily ever after, at least as far as this section of the Bill is concerned.
To be fair to the Deputies, the Bill to be introduced after Easter will be much more comprehensive and will deal with immigration related issues in so far as they affect the labour market. It will be dealt with in the appropriate fashion and we will have a lot more time. We will be able to tease out some of these issues on Committee Stage. There are obviously grey areas here, and they must be considered.
Generally speaking, if someone comes here and is not satisfied with his or her employer, or the terms on which the permit was issued are not being honoured, provided he or she can find another employer to take him or her, he or she will be issued with a work permit. If complaints are made to my Department by a fellow employee in a place of work that is taken on board as well.
As a matter of interest, we have translated the labour law into nine different languages so that those who come to the country and do not speak English can easily understand their rights. I believe that is important and it is being seen as a very valuable service by many of the people who come to Ireland on work permits.
I will have to revert to the Deputy regarding issues to do with self-employment. I am not aware of huge numbers of people coming here who want to create businesses. I do not know if that is the point Deputy Morgan was making.
There is no facility for them to come.
There are facilities to come and make investments. If Deputy Morgan is talking about someone who wants to come and set up a business there are immigration issues relating to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in relation to such a person. Maybe I could revert to the Deputy in relation to the precise detail he seeks.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 5, after "permit")" to insert "granted to the employee, which shall not be limited to employment by a particular employer".
Amendment put and declared lost.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this is a great House. The ratio of Opposition to Government Members in the House at present is 3:1 and yet we lost the vote.
It is four to one.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (2), line 6, after "State" to insert ", nor may an employment agency facilitate such employment in the State,".
I spoke at length this morning about a key problem for migrant workers and their representatives, which I have brought to the attention of Ministers or have outlined in this House. In the area of recruitment agencies and middle men, fixers and agents is a territory the Minister should also have included in the legislation, particularly in relation to sanctions. People who are outside the State are outside its jurisdiction but I hope that in the Ukrainian case, to which a number of Deputies referred today, the Ukrainian authorities will be encouraged to deal with the thieves who robbed those Ukrainian workers and brought them to this country under false pretences.
There are also agencies with Irish connections. I referred to the appalling reports earlier this year about a person with Irish connections who was operating in the Far East and put out appalling advertising to Irish employers about Nepalese workers. The advertising referred to how easy such workers were to manage, how hard they could be worked and how little they would work for. That is very bad.
As I recalled this morning, it was from the Minister's officials in another section of the Department that I learned about this area of activity when we were dealing with a Bill relating to leave for carers. I was struck by the explosion in the number of these companies which had come to the fore in the absence of more recent regulation. There was a feeling then in the Department that we should have taken some action about them and checked their bona fides. I accept that when one inputs "work in Ireland" into a computer search engine one will find many reputable agencies, but there are also ones flying by the seat of their pants with little knowledge of the difficulties that workers face and who want to abuse and misuse people from other countries in our labour market, which is something we should not tolerate.
The Labour Party and the trade union movement fought hard over the years for advances in worker protection legislation, as did you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in your career. We tried to bring forward improvements in regard to workers' conditions, health and safety and so on. While I am sometimes critical of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I acknowledge that during her period in office she brought forward the minimum wage. I regret that members of my party were unable to make that claim in regard to their ministerial careers. However, the Minister did not accept my Bill on trade union recognition. She has set her face against that. I hope that in the future the Labour Party and its allies in this House will be able to bring forward a good trade union recognition Bill. We have set up a whole platform of workers' rights and it is important that this would not be denied to other people coming to seek a future in this State. We should not expect them to put up with worse conditions than we would expect Irish citizens to tolerate, nor should we allow this country's reputation to be sullied by offering appalling working conditions whether it is in the food industry, the service industry, restaurants or elsewhere.
The Minister needs to grapple with this issue, which is similar to the previous matter discussed. Perhaps she will include it in the forthcoming legislation on this area. I am aware that legislation exists in this regard but the situation has changed somewhat since it was framed and a different structure is now required in order to protect migrant workers, many of whom will settle among us as citizens. I urge the Minister to re-think her position. The best solution we could find was to try to insert the phrase, "nor may any employment agency facilitate such employment in the State," in subsection (2), line 6, after "State", without employment permits. Presumably the penalties referred to under the body corporate could also apply to these agencies. I again urge the Minister to accept the amendment given what is well documented in the media, by the trade union movement and what her Department knows. We should bring these recruitment agencies within the ambit of this legislation. If not, the matter should be dealt with in detail in the legislation which the Minister is to bring before the House in the near future.
I support the amendment. It is another weakness in the Bill that it does not allude to the rogue agencies in some way. This amendment would fulfil the requirement in that regard and I commend Deputy Broughan for moving it.
I accept that there are issues in regard to employment agencies. It may be more correct to say that there are issues in regard to some of the middle people, some of which are agencies and some of which are not. Many of them are registered abroad. We have regulations dealing with employment agencies and this is an area which we can examine to see what the appropriate sanctions might be if they prove to be inadequate in the current regulations, in the context of the more comprehensive legislation due to come forward after Easter.
The employer who is the one ultimately responsible for the work permit is who the penalties have to be levelled against. Some agencies are most reputable and help employers to locate staff but after they have done this they do not usually have any further contact with the person that they put in touch with the employer and the responsibility passes on through the permit to the employer. It would be extremely difficult if one were to have a situation where an intermediary such as an agency was responsible for some aspects of the matter and then the employer took over other responsibilities. Given that I am aware of some of the difficulties that have arisen in regard to agencies or so-called agencies, I give a commitment that I will examine the matter in the context of the more comprehensive legislation to come.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (3), lines 13 to 16, to delete paragraph (b).
This amendment was proposed by my colleague, Senator Tuffy, in the Seanad, on the grounds that the range of penalties in both cases, especially in regard to workers themselves, was draconian – on indictment a person would be fined €250,000 or up to ten years in jail. Given the account that I went over this morning and the reference made to cases of clear abuse in regard to rogue employers, there is necessity for a serious sanction.
In regard to the Broadcasting (Major Events Television Coverage) (Amendment) Bill, I raised the issue of proportionality with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern. Proportionality is an important attribute in regard to sanctions and the penalty proposed here does not fulfil this requirement, which is why this amendment has been tabled to delete paragraph (b).
I urge the Minister to look at another issue which has not been put forward in an amendment but which is related and this is in regard to an appeals system. In subsection (3) and subsection (4), a person charged with an offence will have to show that he or she took all such steps as were reasonably open. Earlier speakers referred to the system of work permit applications and renewals or the case of a worker changing from one employer to another, where it is easy for an injustice to be done, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Department. I think Deputy Eamon Ryan has tabled an amendment somewhat along the lines I envisage in order to put in place some type of appeals system.
This is common practice across a range of Departments, particularly in the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Although in the past I criticised it for not being on a statutory basis, it does exist. We are used to other appeal mechanisms and there should be one in the context of work permits. I understand that officials in the work permits section are under intense pressure. A very small number of staff must deal with a huge number of workers, employers and agents. Nevertheless, I call upon the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consider a system of appeals within his Department.
I have no problem whatsoever with the €250,000 fine or possible ten years imprisonment for rogue employers. It was mentioned earlier that a good publicity campaign should be run to ensure that all employers realise the implications of this Bill. If that is successfully done, there is no excuse for employers to break the law.
I have some reservations about the penalty of €3,000 or one year of imprisonment for employees. The Garda seems to indicate that there are 10,000 people working illegally in this country. Many of them are working on the minimum wage, paying back money they had to hand over to get here in the first place and trying to support families in the countries they came from. We will find it very difficult to extract any financial payments from these people. Some interim arrangement will have to be looked at if the figures are as large as the Garda seems to indicate. The problem lies more on the employee side than the employer side.
Even by the standards of the Progressive Democrats, section 2(3)(b) of the Bill is an absolutely incredible provision. It beggars belief that the deputy prime Minister would come into Dáil Éireann and provide penalties of €250,000 or ten years in prison for the crime of employing somebody from outside the EU without a permit. What planet is the Minister living on? If memory serves me correctly, that is roughly the penalty that is imposed on a gangster for importing large amounts of heroin to enslave working class kids in drug addiction and cause endless suffering, misery and crime for working class communities. To equate the employment of somebody without a permit from the Government with a heroin-importing gangster who destroys communities and people is absolutely unreal.
However, it is in keeping with the Minister's approach to immigrant workers, which has been shown to be callous in the extreme, bordering on xenophobic. The attitude of the Minister, as indicated in many of her speeches I have read, is that immigrant labour is to be used strictly when it is urgently required by the State because employers cannot find Irish citizens or residents to do certain jobs. When people have a choice, they will not opt for the unpleasant and dirty jobs. In those circumstances, the Minister says that it is fine to bring immigrant workers in and send them on to farms to pick fruit, clean floors or whatever. However, if there is any tightening in the labour market, to use the language of the Progressive Democrats, they should be sent back to where they came from and dispensed with when they are no longer of use.
This is not the first time we have seen this in the EU. We had exactly the same experience in Germany. In the period of boom for German capitalism, tens of thousands of so-called guest workers were brought in from Turkey to beef up the profits of German corporations. Then, when things began to tighten, successive German Governments changed their tune and went on to create an atmosphere of racism and xenophobia against the Turkish guest workers who made such a contribution to the German economy.
I ask the Minister to think of the plight of our fellow countrymen and women who are in a similar position in the United States. Through no fault of their own, they are living in a sort of twilight world and depend on some employer, perhaps, to give them a job to survive. If we adopt a similar approach to this, it is those who are already marginalised who will suffer. Some asylum seekers have been here for years but are denied the right to work and are driven into welfare by the policies of the Government. This is absolutely incredible. If the Government has any honour, I ask the Minister to withdraw this provision forthwith and accede to the Labour Party amendment. Do not disgrace us completely. On this issue at least, let us use a different yardstick to the one the Minister is using in allowing Shannon Airport to be used by US military war planes, terrified that she will lose some revenue.
When I woke up this morning and looked at my morning newspapers, Deputy Higgins was eagle-spread across the front of several of them. I saw a different perspective on Deputy Higgins from what I normally see in this House. His attitude to this amendment is astonishing. We have a situation at the moment where an employee can be prosecuted for working illegally but there is no such penalty on the employer. Thankfully it is not common, but employers exploit people from time to time and employ people illegally, do not insure them, do not deal with health and safety issues and do not pay appropriate taxes to the authorities. Deputy Higgins is saying that is not important and we should ignore it. It is important. It is important for employee protection and for protecting the State's revenue base.
More importantly, I know of no country that has the kind of open door approach to immigration that Deputy Higgins seems to be suggesting. He seems to take the view that anyone who comes here, no matter how they get here, should be entitled to work without a permit and that there should be no offences or penalties if they work illegally. That makes no sense whatsoever. Our first responsibility is to our people and to other citizens of the European Union. We have a population of 3.7 million. Thanks to our economic growth and prosperity in recent years, we have been able to provide employment opportunities not only for our own citizens and returning emigrants but for the citizens of many countries, both in the EU and further afield.
Many have obtained good employment opportunities here that they could not have got in their own countries, just as we found opportunities in other countries in the past when this economy could not provide opportunities for all our people. A sensible immigration policy must be based clearly on opportunities that exist in Ireland. There is no point in bringing in thousands and thousands of people if there are no jobs for them. Just think of the pressure that would place on the housing market, our medical service and our education system. It is the people at the bottom in our society who would suffer most if we were to adopt that kind of approach.
I referred earlier to the Nigerian who was recently deported who had two passports, two work permits, was an asylum applicant and owned a house in Cabra. Is somebody seriously telling me that we should ignore that? Can we afford to ignore that?
I do not believe that is what the people who elect us want us to do.
These penalties are being introduced to ensure appropriate penalties for employers who flout and ignore the law and who have an unfair advantage over other employers who comply with the law. Such penalties are necessary. The culpability of the employer in many of these cases is likely to be far greater given that the employer who takes on the person to work illegally holds most of the advantages over the employee in this relationship. If the person is off the books, as it were, he or she can remain invisible to the authorities. The unscrupulous employer can take advantage of the non-national's illegal status, for example, to illicitly save on costs, such as wages and insurance, and ignore the law of the land in relation to employment conditions, such as health and safety in the workplace and so on. The illegal employee on the other hand, can live under a regime of virtual servitude with the constant threat of being uncovered by the authorities or of being revealed to those authorities by the employer who no longer needs his or her services or as a punishment for some perceived wrong-doing.
One should not underestimate the negative influence for the individual and society posed by those who knowingly exploit their workforce in this way. Some of this exploitation is well organised and run by criminal gangs who can earn much of their profits on the backs of their illegal workforce. There are negative economic effects on the domestic labour workforce which may be denied the prospect of competing for certain jobs because of the illegal employment of foreign workers. This issue has been raised with me on many occasions by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
This is all the more of concern given that the last number of years have seen unprecedented numbers of non-nationals coming legally to work in Ireland. It is not difficult to get a permit if there is a job and to be legal. The requirements of an employment permit system are straightforward, sensible and far from over-burdensome and they show that if there is a genuine job available which cannot be filled by an Irish person or an EU citizen, a work permit will be granted.
When I became Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in 1997, we were granting just under 3,000 permits per year. We had an extremely illiberal, rigid and conservative approach to foreign immigration. Last year we granted 40,000 permits. There must be flexibility in this regard and we must have regard to the needs of our economy and to the opportunities in this economy. It would be foolish in the extreme, to put it mildly, to take the approach that whether a person is legal or not, it does not really matter and there will be no penalties, fines or prosecutions. Clearly, the imposition of a fine, which would be at the discretion of the court, of somewhere in the region of €250,000 would, I imagine, only be imposed in extraordinary circumstances of exploitation and of unscrupulous behaviour. I do not believe the courts would impose high fines for offences which might be relatively minor. In any event, the fine for a minor offence is €3,000. The higher fine is for serious breaches and for constant exploitation of vulnerable people who are brought to this country, perhaps in dubious circumstances.
One cannot enforce a sensible immigration policy unless one has a penalty system. Every other country seems to have such a system and it does not cause problems. As I said to Deputy Joe Higgins, I know of no country which allows the kind of open door approach he seems to be suggesting in his comments.
I agree with Deputy Joe Higgins that subsection (b) is draconian. I appreciate there are rogue employers and we detailed some of the many cases of workers being grossly mistreated. There should be a sanction but this one seems to be out of all proportion to the core offence, which is, not having a work permit. Obviously, there are sanctions in other worker protection legislation which provide the possibility of punishing employers. In the years I have been trying to monitor the Minister's administration, there has been a lack of inspections. I know the situation has improved recently but we witnessed the terrible saga of a number of deaths on building sites and so on. There was also a serious failure to monitor how employers behaved in a range of other areas. The situation would have been different had the Minister accepted the earlier amendments from the Labour Party and Sinn Féin but as it stands, this paragraph should be deleted.
With regard to the Minister's comments on the humiliating pose I was forced to strike in today's newspapers, if her colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, had given us notice of the type of reception those who are responsible and answerable to him were preparing for peaceful protesters outside the House, we might have been able to strike more dignified poses.
It will be good in the Deputy's election literature.
Did the Deputy hear Fr. O'Donovan say this morning that the gardaí behaved impeccably?
I debated this with the gentleman on BBC radio a while ago. I regretted that he was giving cover to the Government for its attempt to criminalise the peaceful anti-war movement.
I am not saying the State or its agencies should ignore the exploitation of workers. This State, the Minister and her Department are responsible for ignoring the exploitation of workers by not having sufficient inspectors to impose full compliance with the national minimum wage legislation, inadequate as it is, and by not having sufficient health and safety inspectors on building sites and other work places, with the result that workers lose their lives, as we have seen tragically. That is not the choice which is open to the Government in this instance.
This legislation is not to end the exploitation of workers from abroad. If the Minister is seriously worried or concerned about that, then she should provide more resources for workplaces and insist on health and safety legislation, proper work rates, etc. It is a question of having compassion and humanity for that not very large number of people who are marginalised in our society and who, as a result of this scare tactic by the Government, will be driven further down.
I object most strongly to the use of the term, "responsibility to our own people." That is the catch-cry of the xenophobe and of some of her colleagues – Fianna Fáil backbenchers who the Minister, I believe, rebuked for comments along these lines when they were directed against asylum seekers and immigrants at various times in recent years. They had the audacity to illustrate problems in housing, as the Minister mentioned housing here. For the Minister's information, it is the speculators who support Fianna Fáil and her party who created the massive housing crisis by doubling, trebling and quadrupling the price of a home and a plot of land on which to build a home in the short space of four or five years and for no good reason except to make a massive profit – to profiteer most outrageously.
Landlords charge the most outrageous rents which the Minister's Government has not lifted a finger to control. I hope she will come back and answer these points because everything I have said is true. There is the most outrageous racketeering in the private rented sector in every community and even those way out of the city centres. Let us tackle the real problems for those the Minister calls "our own people" because of the massive economic pressure they are put under in this regard. I say no; I do not condone exploitation. I have stood against it all my life as a fighter for working class people. To give the choice to starve or worse to unfortunate people and those who are extremely marginalised is not what an Irish Government should do in present or any circumstances.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (10), lines 11 to 14, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"(a) who has filed an application under section 8 of the Refugee Act 1996 which is still pending determination, where the application has been pending for less than six months,”.
The original intention behind this amendment was to reaffirm the right to work of all refugees as outlined in section 3 of the Refugee Act 1996, to extend the right to work to all asylum applicants whose applications have been in the process for more than six months and to reserve restrictions to eligibility to work permits to those asylum applicants whose applications have been in the process for less than six months. Sinn Féin calls for this and we hope that this right to work can be positively and specifically recognised in the more substantive employment permit legislation which will, I hope, come before the House in the weeks to come.
As a result of the very short time between publication of this Bill and the deadline for filing amendments, due to it being rammed or guillotined through the House with all Stages taken within a few short hours, this amendment was, unfortunately, misformulated and does not accurately reflect the original intent. I recognise that and, for this reason, I withdraw the amendment.
Deputy Morgan has obviously noticed a mistake with regard to his amendment.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The amendment is not before the House.
The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be that those granted refugee status have a right to work.
We have moved on from that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 6 cannot be moved.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We come to amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 are cognate so amendments Nos. 7, 12, 13, 14, and 15 may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, subsection (1)(b), line 10, to delete “Treaty” and substitute “Act”.
This is a technical amendment.
The Bill has been drafted based on the conditions of the Treaty of Accession which has not yet been signed and the powers accorded to member states to implement their own national measures and legislation to deal with labour market access once accession takes place. Once it is ratified by all the relevant countries, this State will then have to pass an Act in order to transpose the treaty into domestic law. Until such time, the treaty shall not be referred to as an Act and the Bill before us cannot be based on an Act that does not yet exist. Therefore, technically, it is not possible to accept this amendment.
I presume the Minister will not create difficulties with regard to the timeframe that she thought she was operating under, namely, 16 April. Will it be acceptable—
I base what I am saying on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. The Bill dealing with ratification will deal with that matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 14, after "Republic" where it secondly occurs to insert "and any other state which, after the passing of this Act, becomes party to an instrument whereby it accedes to membership of the European Union".
Everybody taking part in this debate warmly welcomed the accession of the ten countries. There were different views during the Nice treaty referenda and full discussions about the impact of the treaty. The major difficulty that many people had – a majority of the people rejected the Nice treaty – lay with governance and the fact that many citizens felt that small countries such as ours, and the bulk of the sister countries now joining us, would be gravely disadvantaged by the changes rushed through in the Nice treaty.
Nonetheless, accession is happening. This amendment seeks to grant the same freedom to work across the Community to the other countries which will join the EU. I discussed at length this morning the path on which Romania and Bulgaria are embarked and the fact that, almost certainly, in a few years they will join the EU after the ten accession countries. The Union will become one of 27 states.
My party believes in the positive principles of European union and of peoples working together in peace and harmony across wide territories. I am one who feels that those principles could be applied to the whole planet, not just to Europe. We hear already of agreements with Croatia and Macedonia and of relationships with the former states of Yugoslavia which were torn apart by a crazy dictatorship in Belgrade and a sectarian Government. A Deputy made reference to the migrations of Turkish workers, who only recently, at third generation, were allowed to become German citizens. Issues will also, I hope, arise with regard to the liberation and rights of the Kurdish people of Turkey who are currently seriously repressed. This Bill might be able to give the same warm welcome to the people and workers of these areas in the years to come.
The Treaty of Accession negotiated between the EU member states and the ten countries due to accede to the Union in 2004 provides that member states shall apply their own national measures regarding labour market access for at least the first two years following accession in respect of the nationals of eight of those countries – all except Malta and Cyprus who will have full accession from day one. Ireland's national measures consist of granting labour market access to the nationals of the eight states once accession takes place.
The purpose of section 3 of the Bill is to give legislative effect to these measures by providing for an exemption from the requirement for an employment permit for the nationals of these states should they wish to take up employment in the State. This section has regard to the parties to the Treaty of Accession. The acceptance of the proposed amendment would not only mean including states not covered by the Treaty of Accession but would also make reference to instruments that do not yet exist, the provisions of which may be entirely different to those contained in the current accession treaty. Accordingly, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
As amendment No. 10 is an alternative to amendment No. 9, they may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, lines 15 to 21, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) If the labour market is experiencing or is likely to experience a disturbance, then, notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may, on the advice of the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Economic and Social Council, and with the agreement of the Houses of the Oireachtas, during the transitional period, make an order providing that section 2 shall apply to a national of a state to which this section applies during a specified period or periods within the transitional period and if he or she does so, that section shall apply in accordance with the order.”.
I have proposed this amendment because I am uncomfortable with the power that has been given to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in section 3(3). The decision to make an order of the kind referred to in my amendment should not be based solely on the opinion of any Minister, but should be taken following consultation with a large group of people. The social partners, including the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Economic and Social Council, trade unions, employers' representatives and the Oireachtas should be consulted. The advice of such bodies should be sought on these matters. The process of consultation should not only involve representative organisations, but also the public representatives in this Parliament. Such a system would be more democratic and fair than the provision in this Bill, which vests all the authority in a Minister's opinion.
I originally intended to recommend the deletion of section 3 on Report Stage, given that a seven-year transition period is in place. At the very least, I intended to propose to add the word "significant" before the word "disturbance" in section 3(3).
I said this morning that I wanted the Minister to extrapolate on the circumstances that might give rise to a reimposition of the section 2 requirement for the citizens of eight accession countries to have a work permit. In light of the fact that the accession states are being warmly welcomed into the EU, nothing should be done to damage the positive relationship we want to have with them in the years to come. My Green Party colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, drew attention to the other side of this issue this morning when he asked about the possible measures that may be introduced in other countries that fear that there might be a reversal. I appreciate that it is difficult to imagine how such a reversal could take place, but I understand that the ownership of land by people from the existing 15 member states, particularly those from neighbouring countries, is a big issue in the debates on the EU membership referendums in Poland and the Czech Republic. The ten accession states may desire to impose restrictions.
What informed the thinking of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in relation to this matter? It is obvious that it is being introduced as a safeguard, but I mentioned this morning that fears have been expressed in relation to substitution in labour markets, especially in areas of grave disadvantage. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has made huge efforts to support programmes in the social economy, but they are not enough. The plug has been pulled, or almost pulled, on many of our programmes. While huge efforts are being made, we have to work out a balanced approach. I would like to know what informed the Minister's thinking in this regard? Why is this section of the Bill needed?
I support amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I apologise to the House for the inability of my colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to move amendment No. 6 earlier. I am afraid he misjudged the efficiency of the House in dealing with the preceding amendments. Another mitigating factor is that today is his twin's birthday.
We will forgive him.
As his Whip, I apologise on his behalf. As Deputy Broughan said, Deputy Eamon Ryan alluded to the need to examine this section of the Bill in both its perspectives. I support those who have proposed the amendments to this section, which try to address an area that the Minister has chosen not to address. I ask the Minister, Deputy Harney, to accede to modifying the Bill in this way.
The House can take it as read that there would be widespread consultation in the unlikely event of control measures being introduced, or work permits being needed by the citizens of the countries in question once more. I do not envisage that these provisions will be used and I hope I am right in that regard. It would be foolish, however, not to put in place a provision such as that in section 3(3), which was described by Deputy Coveney as "prudent". Other member states in the same position as Ireland have made similar provisions – we have had to introduce special legislation to give us the power to reintroduce the permit requirement. Ireland is one of six countries that have agreed to give the citizens of the accession states the right to work without a permit from the date of accession. Nine countries have not agreed to do so – some of them have decided not to make such an allowance and others have not yet made a decision. The other five countries in the same position as Ireland have taken legislative steps to provide for the power to reintroduce an authorisation or a permit process, should the need arise.
Only in unforeseen circumstances that I cannot envisage, perhaps involving mass unemployment and huge disruption in the labour market, would a reversal of work permit policy in relation to the accession states be necessary. The Government does not envisage that such circumstances will arise. It would be foolish, however, in the context of the introduction of this legislation, not to provide for the remote possibility that circumstances will change.
Have the accession countries introduced safeguards in regard to us, in reverse?
I do not know the answer to the Deputy's question off the top of my head, but I am aware that there are different agreements in the various accession treaties. Certain countries have made specific property purchase arrangements. Property can be freely purchased by citizens of existing member states in some accession countries, but there are longer delays in other states. There are different regulations in different places. When I was in Hungary earlier this week, I met representatives of about 12 Irish companies that have either a sales and marketing office in that country or are manufacturing there. I am aware that there is a great deal of investment in some of the applicant countries and there are no difficulties in that regard.
Deputy Broughan is right to point out that there are specific concerns in Poland and elsewhere. Deputies will be aware that the recent referendum on EU membership in Malta was carried by a narrow majority of about 3%. A similar referendum will take place in Hungary on 12 April next. These issues are being debated in the accession states, most of which, if not all, have the power to make regulations to prevent the citizens of the existing member states from making investments, purchasing property or working there.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Tá
|
Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cregan, John.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Dennehy, John.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Conor.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie. |
Níl
|
Boyle, Dan.Broughan, Thomas P.Burton, Joan.Costello, Joe.Crowe, Seán.Gogarty, Paul.Harkin, Marian. |
Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Michael D.McGrath, Finian.Morgan, Arthur.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Shea, Brian. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and O'Donnell; Níl, Deputies Ó Snodaigh and McGrath.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
In accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day I am required to put the following question: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of that the section is hereby agreed to in committee, that the Title is hereby agreed to in committee and that the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and agreed to.