I am the legislation and public affairs officer for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. I am also the worker delegate from Ireland to the International Labour Organisation and I have represented workers throughout the world on the topic of migration. The most recent conference related to the rights of workers on fishing vessels. We have much international experience in regard to the abuse of workers in particular sectors.
I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to comment on the Employment Permits Bill 2005. Many of our observations are relevant to the committee's discussion and relate to trafficking, smuggling and forced labour. The majority of employers in Ireland do not exploit their workforce and have been put at a serious disadvantage by those who do. Moreover, the majority of migrants have a reasonably good experience in Ireland. It has been positive for them and their families. For some, including many Filipino domestic employees, working here allows them to make a major contribution to their communities at home. From our perspective, therefore, migration is positive for us and for the workers and their families, both in Ireland and in the countries from which they come.
My experience is that it can be difficult to discuss the issue of forced labour. People regularly say there is no evidence that it takes place. An employer who recognises a worker's right to belong to a trade union is unlikely to believe it acceptable to exploit him or her through forced labour. It is difficult, therefore, for the ICTU to gather statistics. I am fairly confident, however, that forced labour is happening in Ireland because it is no different to any other state. The absence of a witness who can testify to being forced to work in any type of employment should not leave us blind to reality or offer an excuse to avoid introducing effective legislation.
We have concerns that some aspects of the Employment Permits Bill 2005 may make it easier for those who want to exploit workers, engage in human trafficking or force people into particular types of employment. Of particular concern is that the Bill continues to tie employees to employers in so far as workers must rely on their employers to apply for permits each year. This places workers in a very vulnerable situation. They know that if they stand up and say the way in which they are being treated is unacceptable and unfair, their employer may not apply for their permit at the end of the year or, even worse, retaliate by sacking them. The legislation should allow for only one type of permit, that which is applied for and held by the employee.
It is inappropriate and dangerous for workers that employment permits can be applied for by employment agencies. Current regulation is so ineffective that an employer outside Ireland could apply for permits and then place people here to fill the relevant vacancies. This is a frightening and appalling prospect. Legislation in place in other jurisdictions is specifically designed to prevent this type of looseness. We would not like to see an emergence of the gang master phenomenon, for an example of which we need only consider what happened to the cockle shell pickers in Britain. We should be vigilant in our legislation to make sure the same cannot ever happen here.
The legislation also provides inadequate protections against discrimination in employment. The only enforceable wage standard is the minimum wage. The Bill does not even recognise employment regulation orders or other joint labour committees findings. A guarantee of receipt of the minimum wage does not represent fair treatment for most migrant workers. Many find that their Irish colleagues are being paid far more than the minimum wage.
The legislation must include effective safeguards and supports for migrant workers. One particularly useful provision states that the employer must, prior to the engagement of a migrant worker, set out the wages and terms and conditions relating to his or her employment. However, there is no way of enforcing this stipulation and some migrant workers may find that they are presented with a completely different contract on arrival in the State. The voluntary arrangement in regard to such matters, which has worked well for us in the past, simply does not work when it comes to the placement of migrant workers. It is possible that this voluntary system worked in the past because we all, employers and employees alike, lived in our communities. More often than not, this is no longer the case. Many employers operate on contracts and it is difficult to enforce safeguards effectively through a voluntary system in which the only enforceable wage standard is the minimum wage.
I welcome the introduction of restrictions on the retention of passports. It is particularly useful that these provisions also relate to a range of documents other than passports. In the case of GAMA, for example, some workers had documentation on their bank accounts stolen. These provisions mean that this can no longer happen. Again, however, one wonders where the safeguards are in this regard. To whom can one complain if one's employer does not comply with these stipulations? What guarantee is there that a worker who complains will have his or her documents returned? At present, such a worker may complain to the Minister who can then initiate a prosecution, which is a slow and unsatisfactory process.
There is no protection for workers who complain. The system relies on the assumption that a worker who is treated badly will leave and perhaps take a case to the Labour Court or the equality tribunal. However, such a course of action requires one to be able to leave one's current crummy employment and wait 18 months to have one's case heard. A person must be destitute for those 18 months or until his or her residence is up, in which case he or she will be deported because there is no right to take another job, not even where the worker in question can show evidence of employer abuse. These circumstances provide a loophole through which workers' rights can fall. The habitual residence requirement in regard to social welfare benefit also militates against migrant workers taking action against employers. I understand that it takes 15 months for migrant workers to qualify for unemployment benefit. This means that workers who are the victims of exploitation can spend a year destitute and possibly homeless as a consequence of standing up for their rights or they can leave the country.
We all wish to ensure that Ireland does not become a haven for traffickers or smugglers or those who perpetrate these types of abuses. However, a major concern in this regard is that the legislation treats the victims who have been trafficked or forced into labour here in the same way as exploitative employers are treated. This is not right. The perpetrators of these abuses must be convicted and imprisoned. We should not, however, threaten those who are forced into labour with the same penalties.
