JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 2008

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The following measures have been adopted and it is proposed that they be noted: COM (2007) 582, COM (2007) 583, COM (2007) 590, COM (2008) 4 and COM (2008) 24. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that the following proposals require no further scrutiny and that they be noted: COM (2007) 593, COM (2007) 855, COM (2007) 858, COM (2007) 872, COM (2008) 1, COM (2008) 3, COM (2008) 22, COM (2008) 23, COM (2008) 25, COM (2008) 27, COM (2008) 28, COM (2008) 29, COM (2008) 34, COM (2008) 51, COM (2008) 75, COM (2008) 76, COM (2008) 83 and COM (2008) 84. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals to be sent to sectoral committees for their information.

The next item is CFSP (2008) 81. It is proposed to note this measure. Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no Title IV measures. The next item is an early warning note, EWN C88-10. It is proposed that this notification does not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 7 is proposals for further scrutiny. COM (2007) 697 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending EU Directives 2002/21/EC, on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; 2002/19/EC on the access to and interconnection of electronic communications networks and services; and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communication networks and services.

COM (2007) 698 is a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on the universal services and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communication sector and Regulation 2006/2004 on consumer protection co-operation.

COM (2007) 699 is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European electronic communications market authority. On 13 November 2007 the Commission published a major package aimed at making far-reaching reforms to the European telecommunications market. The European telecommunications market has been regulated by the EU since 1998 but problems persist as regards competition, particularly in the important broadband market, key to the EU and Ireland's economic competitiveness. The reform package proposes the replacement of four current directives and a regulation regulating the telecommunications market with two new directives and a regulation.

The four main broad objectives of the reform are to regulate less but more effectively; to strengthen the independence of the national telecoms watchdogs or regulators, which is ComReg in Ireland's case, from operators and Governments; to preserve and enhance consumer protection and user rights and, in particular, focus on users with disabilities and the elderly; to enhance the security and reliability of Europe's communications and to create the right conditions for moving to a true single market in telecommunications by fostering pan-European markets and ensuring EU rules are applied consistently across the EU.

The proposal will introduce new rules for the management of spectrum. The switch-over from traditional analogue broadcasting to digital, due to take place by 2012, will free up this very valuable bandwidth or radio spectrum. The effective use of the spectrum can offer opportunities for the use of wireless access to broadband communications. Wireless solutions are often the best way to bring broadband to remote and rural areas. Currently regulation and allocation of spectrum, a key economic resource, take place nationally. The Commission believes this hinders investment and is an inefficient way of managing spectrum. While the right to sell or auction a radio spectrum will remain with the individual member state which owns it, the proposal will establish EU-level rules to support secondary spectrum trading. This would allow operators who have already acquired usage rights to sell those rights if they no longer need them. The Department's note indicates that it has concerns regarding the proposed compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. While the Commission argues that the principle has been respected, it could be argued that the proposed rules which allow the Commission to intervene when it believes that actions of a national regulator are ineffective, and which would introduce secondary spectrum trading, go too far in shifting powers and responsibility from member states to the Commission. The role of the proposed European telecoms market authority would also need to be clarified in this context.

Given the importance of the telecoms market to the economic competitiveness of Ireland, especially with regard to broadband, and the concerns that this far-reaching reform package may have implications for the control of this very important economic resource, and in order to assess properly the costs and benefits of the package, it is recommended that these proposals, taken together, warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is also recommended, in order to assist the committee in its detailed examination of the proposal, that the following should be invited to attend the committee to offer their views. These are, from the regulator and Government point of view, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. The industry and providers perspective will be provided by Eircom, service provider and network owner; and the Irish Cellular Industry Association, representing Vodafone, O2, Meteor and 3. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2008) 9 deals with the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and Council on the safety of toys. The Commission undertook a major review of toy safety controls in autumn 2007 following a series of high-profile toy recalls. The new directive aims at enhancing the safety of toys while ensuring the free movement of toys within the European Union by replacing and modernising the 20 year old toys Directive 88/378/EEC. The new directive proposes to enhance the safety requirements to cope with recently identified hazards regarding, in particular, chemicals in toys, choking dangers and toys associated with food. More efficient enforcement of the directive in member states is necessary.

The Department indicates in its information note that this proposal is of more significance. In view of the importance of ensuring that adequate measures are enforced to regulate toy safety in the Irish market, and in light of the major products recall in 2007, it is recommended that this proposal warrants further scrutiny and that it be included in the upcoming agenda. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is also recommended that in order to assist the committee in its detailed examination of this proposal, the following should be invited to attend before the committee to offer their views. These are the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to comment on Government policy and the National Consumer Agency as the market surveillance authority representative of toy retailers in Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed.

There are no proposals for observations or detailed scrutiny to be forwarded to the sectoral committees.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

May I make a brief comment?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I genuinely admire the Chairman's work ethic but the committee seems to take on very much by examining quite a few of these matters in detail. There are limits to what this committee can do and follow up on. I do not know how other members feel but we must consider the matter carefully. Perhaps we will not do it today but the Chairman might consider putting the issue on the agenda for discussion some other day.

I have attended one or two of these in-depth meetings and a good example concerned airport charges. We could spend the time of several meetings on even one of these topics and I am not sure the committee has the resources or the time to do this as required.

Chairman

On that point, many recommendations have come in from sectoral committees. This committee has conducted an in-depth study of only 15 proposals. Only two of those for mention today will be subject to a public hearing. We are picking those that would be most beneficial for the committee to analyse in detail. We examined airport charges, the food HACCP principles, and the reinsurance and assurance industry. We can only take the best advice as to which issues are put on the agenda

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I am not being critical. I am only trying to assist.

Chairman

I know that, but compared with the previous scrutiny sub-committee, we have more resources, including good support and great policy advisers. I am impressed by the work and research conducted for our meetings week after week. I am totally astonished by the number of reports compiled since our last meeting on the recommendations forwarded to the Minister for observations. For example, later we will discuss the proposal on the access of migrants from Third World countries to the EU and the blue card system. However, unlike the sub-committee, we invite vested interests to appear before us.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I do not say the committee should not hold substantive hearings but one of our principal jobs should be to follow up with other committees and ask why they did not examine proposals, follow up with Departments and ask why they have not taken action and examine proposals to ascertain whether they are in breach of the subsidiarity or the proportionality principles. Once we go down this road, if the Lisbon treaty is passed, the committee will have the job, in the first instance, of examining every Commission proposal and, within a set timeframe, of saying whether it should have a yellow flag, orange flag and so on. We must be careful because we are doing the work of other committees today.

Chairman

I refer to the summary report on the committee's work to date. The committee has examined a total of 444 proposals. It was agreed to forward 25 to the various sectoral committees and I am impressed by the work done on them. These were proposals we felt were appropriate for written observations, which were subsequently included in the final report. The committee has scrutinised 15 proposals itself. The process included the appearance of various witnesses. The breakdown of the categories of the proposals considered by the joint committee is as follows: adopted measures, 75; no further scrutiny needed, 173; sent for information to sectoral committee, 65; Common Foreign and Security Policy proposals, 45; Title V, seven; early warning notices, 39; for further scrutiny, which the committee felt was warranted, 15; and for written observations to sectoral committees, 25. A number of Departments have replied to these with detailed submissions and the committee has made observations. The other committees have responded within the timeframe of four to six weeks. Since our first meeting on 8 November 2007, all the sectoral committees responded within the timeframe with recommendations, which have been forwarded with our observations to the Dáil. I spoke last week with the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, and he is anxious that one of these reports that we feel warrants debate should be discussed in the Chamber on a Thursday morning.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

Could I interrupt, Chairman, regarding the proposal on airport charges, which we debated? Did we send that to the Joint Committee on Transport for its information and for comment?

Chairman

Yes, for its information.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

Did that committee have a similar debate?

Chairman

No, there is no point in having duplication on such matters. We invited the vested interests to our meeting. We sent a report to the clerk to the Joint Committee on Transport. This committee's mandate and terms of reference entitles it to decide on EU proposals. We have a greater entitlement to do so than the Joint Committee on Transport. When we had discussed airport charges we sent our report to the Joint Committee on Transport for comment. If that committee had any concerns, it had a right to respond to us. I spoke to the Government Whip last week, who very much welcomes this committee making decisions.

I am very pleased with the work of this committee. The last Sub-committee on European Scrutiny was like a post box in that items were coming in and going out simultaneously. I was quite adamant that this committee would not be a post box where reports were simply received and forwarded on. At best, this committee can only discuss 25 proposals during the year. Our job is to select, on the recommendation of our advisers, the most valid proposals that warrant further debate and scrutiny. We will also send on another 25 proposals to the relevant Oireachtas committees.

I am glad to clarify this matter and take the opportunity to acknowledge the excellent research facilities at the disposal of this committee. It is one of the best-researched Oireachtas committees, about which I am very pleased. I will be attending a meeting of the working group of committee Chairmen, where I will seek further support for this committee, to which I believe we are entitled.

Deputy Joe Costello

I support the Chairman in many ways but have some sympathy with the point made by Deputy Mulcahy. Many of us are members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs as well as of this committee. A meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs will take place at 2 p.m. today. Therefore, we will be pushed for time with regard to presentations at this meeting.

Undoubtedly, the committee secretariat is doing a fantastic job. Both the quality and the quantity of work is amazing. When the Lisbon treaty is dealt with, and I hope passed, we must undertake a fresh examination of the work of this committee because it will have an entirely new and pro-active role. While it is very important that we forward proposals to the various portfolios and sectoral areas, we must also focus on important areas that we believe deserve further scrutiny. In those cases, we should invite the main players and stakeholders to discuss the issue with us. We should attempt to attract more media coverage for such meetings. That would be very worthwhile. The issue on today's agenda has major implications and it would be wonderful if this committee could deal effectively with such issues, while also securing media coverage for them.

The major problem that I see at present is the overlap between the two committees. Two organisations will be addressing the Joint Committee on European Affairs this afternoon about the Lisbon treaty, while there are five organisations scheduled to appear before us now.

Chairman

It is hard work.

Deputy Joe Costello

There is a lot of work involved.

Deputy Damien English

We do not need to take a break today. Most of us would prefer to continue and finish at 2 p.m.

There is much good work being done by this committee. I have found the first few months very interesting. If we feel the pressure is building or there is too much work involved, we can simply ask for written submissions from interested groups, with their concerns clearly flagged. In that way, we could see at a glance what the concerns are and decide if we need to probe the issues further, particularly if we are under pressure. However, the level of pressure has not been too bad so far.

I agree with Deputy Costello's comment regarding media coverage for this committee. If people knew this committee existed, there is a higher chance they might vote for the EU treaty. They do not realise what we do and believe things happen in Europe about which we know nothing. It needs to be made clear that directives come through committees first and we have a chance to change and influence them. People do not know this. If this committee is not advertised, the chances of the people passing the EU reform treaty are decreased. This is a concern.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

Does the committee have a budget for public relations?

Chairman

On Deputy Mulcahy's point, a meeting will be held on Thursday. Apparently a new PR company has been appointed by the Houses of the Oireachtas and its job will be to get the word out. Deputy English is dead right about the level of importance of the scrutiny we do on directives and the fact that we could be doing all subsidiary checks. I got agreement with the secretariat today that we will send the agreed documents to the spokespersons of all parties to let people know what has been analysed in detail by the committee. Deputy English correctly stated that many people feel these laws are introduced without being scrutinised.

Deputy Damien English

That thinking is wrong.

Chairman

We discussed an initiative to get more coverage of the work we carry out. It is not that we want personal press but it is important from the point of view of discussing the issues, whether they are airport charges, passport control or re-insurance. It is a disappointment that none of these is covered. We go through the detailed work of these reports and discuss the impact of what will happen. It will all be dealt with.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

The other question is scheduling. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

Chairman

Yes, I know we are under pressure.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I must be there by 2 p.m. It will not work for us.

Chairman

All we can do is proceed with today's meeting and do our best.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I suggest the Chairman should have a private word with Deputy Bernard Durkan, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, to see whether the two committees can work out something to avoid a scheduling clash. Quite a few Members are on both committees.

Chairman

Is this the first time this has happened? Does the Joint Committee on European Affairs always meet on Tuesdays at 2 p.m.?

Deputy Joe Costello

It does.

Chairman

We can move back to an 11 a.m. start.

Deputy Damien English

We probably thought we would have completed the first part of the meeting sooner. It was longer than normal and this is why we have a problem.

Chairman

I am under pressure and I will move on this. We will suspend to allow the witnesses to take their places.

Sitting suspended at 1.32 p.m. and resumed at 1.36 p.m.

Chairman

I apologise to our guests for the fact that the joint committee spent so long discussing matters in private session. On behalf of members, I welcome Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, whose area of expertise is immigration policy, Ms Helen Dixon from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, whose area of expertise is economic migration policy, Mr. Tony Donohoe, head of education, social and innovation policy at IBEC, Ms Esther Lynch, legislation and social affairs officer with ICTU, Ms Hilkka Becker, senior solicitor with the Immigrant Council of Ireland, and Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue, director of the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan to make his presentation.

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

I will deal first with COM (2007) 637, the directive relating to highly-qualified employment. This proposal forms part of the EU's efforts to develop a comprehensive immigration policy specifically in the area of legal migration. It is one of five complementary instruments, three of which have yet to be published. The other instruments to which I refer relate to seasonal workers, interns and people who are the subject of inter-company transfers and they may end up forming the basis of two rather than three proposals.

The instruments are aimed at laying down admission criteria for specific categories of migrants, securing the legal status of already admitted third country workers and introducing procedural simplifications for applicants. The second proposal, COM (2007) 638, is another plank of this comprehensive immigration policy.

The proposed directive, COM (2007) 637, aims to put in place arrangements that will attract high-skilled workers to the EU and is more generally referred to as the "blue card" proposal. It deals with the EU essentially as a single destination. At present highly-skilled workers come to individual member states, rather than to the EU as a whole. The proposal is under discussion at the working party on migration and expulsion, the deliberations of which are at an early stage. Initial indications are that the proposal, assuming agreement and subject to amendment, could be adopted by the end of this year.

This proposal falls under Title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community, the application of which to Ireland is governed by the fourth protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. Under this protocol Ireland has three months after publication to notify the Commission that it has decided to opt into the proposal in question or it may do so at any point after the measure has been ultimately adopted. Ireland did not opt into the proposal during the initial three-month period. The UK similarly has not opted in. It is worth emphasising, however, that this is not a matter of opting out but rather one of leaving the substantive decision to when the directive has been adopted. The fact that the UK was not opting in at the early stage and some uncertainty at the application of the directive would have made it very difficult to go in from the beginning. In the meantime, however, Ireland takes a full part in the working group with the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Enterprise, Trade and Employment both participating. This proposal has come through the justice and home affairs portfolio and since it is an immigration matter, it comes under the overall remit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, as the economic migration aspects of that policy and the assessment of the need for migrant workers is a matter primarily for the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with the committee's permission, I would like to hand over to my colleague, Ms Helen Dixon, from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment who will deal with the specifics of the proposal.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan.

Ms Helen Dixon

In terms of the rationale for the proposals, statistics from the European Commission indicate that the EU is less successful at attracting highly-qualified professionals than either the US or Canada. This is likely to stem from, among other things, the differences between admission procedures within the 27 member states as well as the difficulties involved in moving from one member state to another.

At the time this proposal was launched only ten member states had specific admission procedures to attract highly-skilled workers. This proposal is aimed at addressing the deficit. The proposal establishes a fast-track procedure for the admission of highly-qualified third country workers based on a common definition and criteria, including a work contract, professional qualifications, health insurance and a salary threshold established at national level that must be three times the minimum wage as set by national law. Member states are free to set a salary threshold above this level. A derogation for younger highly-skilled third country nationals is foreseen as they would generally not have the years of experience required to command a salary as high as that envisaged in the proposal

The proposal does not apply to EU citizens or their family members, such as citizens of Romania or Bulgaria who may have restricted access to national labour markets across the EU. Refugees, asylum seekers, those who already have long-term resident status and certain other categories of third country nationals are also excluded in this proposal. Member states are free to operate other or more favourable schemes for attracting highly-qualified third country workers, such as the green card permit scheme operated in Ireland. Member states may not, however, operate more favourable admission criteria for blue card applicants than those set down in the proposal for entry into the first member state under the EU blue card scheme. This is, in effect, to prevent member states from poaching would-be blue card holders by setting lower acceptance criteria. Highly-qualified third country nationals who meet the requirements for the scheme and are accepted will be issued with an EU blue card valid for two years, renewable for at least the same duration. Their access to the labour market in the member state will be restricted for the first two years.

The EU blue card has an associated set of rights, including very favourable conditions for family reunification and the possibility for the EU blue card holder to move to another member state to seek work after two years of legal residence in the first member state. Once an EU blue card holder has accumulated five years of legal residence across up to three member states, he or she may apply for the status of EC long-term resident. It is important to note there is no right to a blue card set out in the proposal and it is specifically stated that member states remain free to determine the volumes of admission of third country nationals for the purpose of highly-qualified employment, may consider the situation of their labour market and may apply the principle of community preference. Member states may withdraw EU blue cards that have been falsely acquired, tampered with or where the conditions for holding the blue card are no longer satisfied.

After two years of legal residence in the member state, the EU blue card holder will enjoy equal treatment with nationals as regards access to highly-qualified employment. Once the blue card holder has attained EC long-term resident status, he or she will be entitled to equal treatment with nationals as regards access to employment and self-employed activities. If the EU blue card holder becomes unemployed for longer than three months the blue card may be revoked, but until that time the worker may be permitted to seek suitable work in the member state.

EC blue card holders shall enjoy equal treatment with nationals in, among other areas and with some derogations, the areas of working conditions, freedom of association, education and vocational training including study grants, recognition of qualifications, social assistance, payment of acquired pensions and access to goods and services, including procedures for obtaining housing. The family members of blue card holders may apply for immediate family reunification and will receive residence permits of the same duration as the EU blue card holder. If the EU blue card holder moves to another member state his or her family will be entitled to do so also, subject to notification requirements.

The proposal also describes the operation of the EU blue card scheme setting down the format, application procedure, notification procedures in cases where the EU blue card holder changes job, and procedural safeguards associated with the scheme.

With regard to the current Irish situation, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment operates a green card scheme which is aimed at attracting high earning and skills shortage migrants to Ireland. Applications may be made in respect of two categories of occupation currently based on salary level. First, where the salary level on offer is €60,000 or more per annum the green card permit is available for all occupations other than those which are contrary to the public interest. Second, green card permits are available in the annual salary range of €30,000 to €60,000 for a restricted number of strategically important occupations. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment can process a green card application within ten days. In the first 11 months of operation from February to December 2007, 2,974 green card permits were issued.

The main issues with regard to the proposal centre on the rights given to blue card holders and, in particular, a technical problem arising from the cross-referencing in the proposal of certain directives on family reunification and long-term residence into which Ireland has not opted. This is, essentially, a legal issue but one which would need to be resolved before Ireland could exercise an option to apply the directive. To date, there has been valuable cross-departmental consultation on this proposal.

In relation to the rights contained in the proposal, we have initial concerns about the provisions granting equal treatment with nationals in the areas of education and, specifically, third level fees, branches of social security, social assistance, the payment of acquired pensions when moving to a third country and access to goods and services, potentially including affordable and social housing. We are seeking clarifications on an ongoing basis at working party level and these clarifications may resolve some of our concerns at an early stage. However, other provisions may be more problematic. The latest meeting discussing the rights element of this proposal took place last week and was attended by representatives of the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social and Family Affairs, so that a full understanding of the provisions in question and their probable implications could be attained.

The scheme may provide value added by identifying a group of highly-skilled workers not currently attracted here by national immigration measures and the Irish green card scheme. The Commission has confirmed that national schemes for the attraction of highly-skilled migrants may run in parallel to this blue card scheme. It could also be argued that not opting into the directive when adopted runs the risk of Ireland being overlooked by some blue card holders when they look to move within the EU or by those highly-skilled workers when they are making their initial choice as to which EU member state they should migrate.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

I propose, with the Chairman's permission, to take both directives together because we have an overlap in common. They are intended to be mutually in force.

I thank the committee for giving IBEC the chance to contribute its views on this issue. The directive has important implications for Irish business and employers.

The primary source of skilled labour supply will continue to be achieved through the skills development of both Irish nationals and other long-term residents. However, bodies such as the expert group on future skills needs have argued strongly that it is in the national interest to seek out and compete for highly skilled individuals and attract them to work in Ireland, whatever their nationality or residence. For this reason, efficient and effective migration procedures, which ensure that Irish companies can compete successfully for the finite pool of highly skilled and highly mobile skilled labour available internationally, are essential. In this respect, IBEC welcomes the European Commission's two legislative proposals, aimed at establishing a directive on immigration for the purposes of highly-qualified employment, known as the blue card proposal, and a directive on a single application procedure for a single work-residence permit and a common set of rights.

Against the background of growing international competition for talent, the blue card proposal is a step in the right direction to increase the EU's attractiveness for highly qualified workers. In many ways, it is similar to the Irish green card system which, despite IBEC's initial reservations, is now functioning quite well. Allowing blue card holders to move to another member state, granting them more favourable conditions in terms of family reunification and introducing equal treatment with respect to a set of socio-economic rights, could attract more highly skilled migrants to Europe and to Ireland. In particular, the provision aimed at facilitating cross-border mobility of third country nationals, already legally residing and working in a member state and holding a blue card, will be of value to Irish business. Likewise, both businesses and migrant workers should benefit from the introduction of a fast-track admission procedure.

However, the proposal also has weaknesses, in particular the fact that it does not fully comply with the subsidiarity principle. IBEC opposes the provision that member states should not be allowed to adopt more favourable conditions for entry into the first member state than the criteria proposed in the directive. IBEC's view is based on its own reading of the section, which is contained in Article 4.2, but there is some ambiguity about the provision. Moreover, we believe that member states should also be allowed to retain their national immigration systems, which may have more favourable provisions for entry, in parallel to the blue card scheme.

Article 5.2 would oblige employers to pay highly qualified third country nationals at least three times the minimum wage level. This provision would, in practice, amount to a form of wage-setting at EU level for those in highly-qualified employment, which is unacceptable.

The derogation under Article 6 concerns young professionals below 30 years of age, who are not likely to have enough professional experience to claim high salaries. We regard the age of 30 as an arbitrary limit which could lead to an unjustified exclusion of specific categories of young professionals, such as those entering the labour market following PhD studies. Raising the age limit to 35 years would allow these workers to fall under the scope of the directive.

I will now move on to the second directive. Companies need admission procedures that allow them to recruit the best candidates through unbureaucratic, rapid and transparent procedures at national level. The single application procedure, proposed in COM (2007) 638, could be a key element for administrative simplification, with the establishment of a one-stop shop and a 90-day deadline for the issue of the residence and work permit. However, this will require closer and more timely co-operation and exchange of information among the relevant Government Departments.

Both proposals introduce equal treatment of third country nationals, compared with member states' own nationals, in a series of areas, including working conditions and pay, education and social security. Employers broadly support the idea of granting basic socio-economic rights on an equal footing with member states' own nationals. However, the Commission approach is to put forward the right to equal treatment in two separate proposals for directives — a general one applying to all migrant workers and another specifically targeted at highly-qualified workers — which is confusing. It would have been clearer if, for example, the highly-qualified employment proposal had clearly indicated in what aspects the rights of blue card holders would differ from those granted under the single application procedure proposal, if a difference in treatment is intended at all.

Ms Esther Lynch

I thank the Chairman and committee for inviting us and being here to listen to our contribution. We are particularly happy because this is our first time being consulted on this matter. Our key message is that we would support a harmonisation across Europe and all trade unions around Europe are supporting that goal. We have a clear message in that the EU blue card must not lower standards among workers already in Europe, nor should it stop investment in their training. I have seven points to make in this regard.

The first is related to the last point mentioned by Mr. Donohoe, namely, that the EU blue card must properly respect the equal treatment of migrant workers. One could ask whether Article 15 already does this and we would indicate it kind of does so. Considering the way people have read Articles 5 and 6, there is an indication the blue card must be given to anybody once he or she is given three times the national minimum wage. That would imply a threshold and standard at which it was okay to employ somebody. Of course, that would not respect the equal treatment principle, which requires workers to be given the same conditions and pay as the people they work beside. In the high-skills sector that could very easily be more than three times the minimum wage.

We propose to the Oireachtas committee that it recommend amendments to the Government and propose that employers would not be allowed to employ somebody on a blue card other than if the salary offered is more than three times the minimum wage and the worker would be given the same pay terms and conditions as everybody else. Taking maternity pay as an example, most people in the high-skills sector would have an employer who would pay maternity pay. The same would apply to sick pay, bonuses and holiday pay. A simple three times the minimum wage strategy does not really capture the whole equal treatment principle, particularly at the high-skills end. That is the first request we ask of the committee.

Our second point is that discrimination on age grounds has no place in today's workplace. My colleague from the congress youth committee, Ms Jane Clare, is here. Her group had a meeting on this issue last night because they knew we were coming here and they are very angry about the proposal. It is unfair to people under 30 years of age and those over that age.

The proposal for the blue card must surely be that once there is a skill deficit and a person has a required skill, that individual can get a blue card. Why is a person's age, be it below or above 30 years, relevant? Age discrimination has no place in the world of work and this gives all the wrong indications to employers about the correct amount to pay people.

Our third point is that we must do much more to secure employment rights across Europe. As committee members know, trade unions have been asking for the help of colleagues in this House to ensure laws are introduced to protect agency workers. I will give an example. Taking three times the national minimum wage as the threshold establishing a job as highly skilled, the Bulgarian minimum wage is 65 cent per hour and Romania's is 80 cent per hour. The minimum wage in Poland is €1.81 per hour and it is €2.55 per hour in Portugal. An employment agency operating out of a Poland could employ somebody as a high-skilled worker once the wage is approximately €5 per hour and send such a person to work in Ireland and deliver a service. That is why we need action from this House to protect workers. While we need the EU agency directive to be introduced, the Oireachtas could bring in legislation now to say just because somebody is employed in an agency, that does not mean it is okay to pay him or her less. That is what our law currently says and we need action on that.

Much more needs to be done to protect posted workers, which goes back to the example I gave. A worker for a company providing a service in Ireland has in theory the same rights as the workers he or she is working beside but the problem is enforcement. How can records be inspected if they are not kept in the country? Even if they could be inspected, how would the State get an employer who is not resident in the country to appear in the Labour Court to say he or she did or did not give a worker his or her rights? Mechanisms to protect workers must be more robust.

The EU blue card holder must be free to change jobs. Colleagues from the migrant rights centre, in particular, have campaigned with us to make sure people are able to change jobs. It does not take much imagination to see how wrong it is for an employer to control a person's presence in a country. All of his or her hopes and those of his or her family depend on him or her being able to stay to do that job. People must be free to change jobs. There is red tape involved in this issue such as a job offer expiring within 60 days.

Employers should not be allowed to use the blue card as an alternative to investment in upskilling the workforce. We have a great deal of research showing our workforce does not necessarily have the skills necessary for the future. Age is not the issue. The skills those who went to school 30 years ago were taught are not necessarily those that will be needed in ten or 20 years. Employers need to be encouraged or forced to give people access to training. We have demands such as the right to flexible working time to allow people to start an hour earlier or finish an hour later so that they can attend college in the evening. There is no requirement on an employer to even consider that request. Employers should be required to do so and only be allowed to refuse if they can make a business case against it.

We ask that the social partners be given a specific role in identifying high-skill deficits. It is not enough to leave it to an individual employer somewhere to say there must be such a deficit because he or she cannot fill a vacancy. Something more intelligent than that is needed. The social partners must be involved in that discussion. For example, 22,000 graduates are currently unemployed in Ireland with 480,000 unemployed throughout Europe. We must ensure that such people cannot take up a job before an employer is able to state that nobody is available to do the job. The trade unions and employers should be given a specific role in identifying high-skill deficits and it should not be left to individual employers.

I am sorry we do not have clear proposals regarding the brain drain but it is an issue about which we should be concerned. It means something that we take all the skilled workers of developing countries which have invested in their training. I thank the committee. A harmonised approach across Europe makes sense but weaknesses need to be addressed.

Ms Hilkka Becker

I thank the committee for the opportunity to make a presentation on these two proposals. We are a non-governmental organisation, which has up to 10,000 people a year looking for services by way of e-mail and a drop-in centre. Our policies are informed by the work we do through provision of information, legal services, advocacy, lobbying, research and training.

I refer to our main issue with the two proposals and EU directives on migration in general. We would ask that Ireland opt into the comprehensive package of measures that are currently being developed throughout the EU which seek to regulate migration flows in a co-ordinated way in order to fully benefit from a common immigration policy at EU level. It is clear that large numbers of migrants will continue to come to Ireland, whether on the basis of permission granted or in an irregular fashion. A fair and transparent immigration system, setting out clearly the conditions on which migrants may be admitted to the State, as well as their rights and obligations, will benefit Ireland and its economic and demographic needs. However, any such policy will ideally form part of an integrated EU approach.

The two proposed directives form part of five legislative proposals to be adopted pursuant to the policy plan on legal migration. The plan aims to lay down admission conditions for specific categories of migrants, to secure the legal status of already admitted third country national workers and to introduce procedural simplifications for applicants. The Immigrant Council of Ireland would welcome the Irish Government opting into the proposal on the single permit and the common set of rights. In particular, we welcome the proposal to introduce a single permit because obtaining a single decision when it comes to applying for permission to work, to reside and, where necessary, to obtain a visa, would provide certainty to migrant workers and their employers. It would simplify the process of answering the question as to whether such workers would be allowed to come to Ireland. At the moment, the situation is that migrants may be granted an employment permit but a second application then has to be made for a visa and-or permission to enter the State. That visa or permission may well be refused, which makes it difficult for employers to make plans for their businesses and migrants to make plans which often involve family members.

Furthermore, the proposed procedural simplification of a single permit issued in a single application procedure would significantly relieve the existing pressure on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Irish naturalisation and immigration service within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which would contribute to a faster and more cost-effective system for the administration of immigration related decisions. The setting up of a one-stop system in Portugal, for example, has proven to be most successful and efficient, both for the state and service users. The granting of this type of permit to legally resident workers would further facilitate their travel and residence in Ireland, by allowing passage through and access to the territory of other member states. In essence, it would make it faster and easier for people to access Ireland when granted a permit because they would not have to apply for transit visas, for example.

The council would welcome Ireland opting into this proposal and would be hopeful that the guarantee of a common set of rights for legally resident migrant workers would close the rights gap between third country workers and Irish nationals. Granting employment-related rights and social security benefits recognises that third country nationals contribute to the economy through their work and tax payments. It can also help to reduce unfair competition emanating from the rights gap. It would protect migrant workers from exploitation, while also protecting Irish nationals from unfair competition through cheap labour. Additionally, granting a common set of rights in community law would create a level playing field at EU level for all third country nationals legally working, irrespective of the member state in which they stay.

On the blue card proposal, the council would be of the opinion that the opt-in to that proposal would only benefit the State and the particular migrants that Ireland is looking to attract. At the same time, Ireland would need to decide to opt into related measures such as the directives on the right to family unification and on long-term residence, both of which are already in force. Articles 16 and 17 of the blue card proposal specifically provide that the directive on the right to family unification and the long-term residence directive "shall" apply. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Irish Government to cherry-pick in relation to this and only opt into the blue card proposal. It would leave itself open to challenge by highly-skilled migrant workers who come to Ireland and who should also have family unification and long-term residence rights.

While the blue card proposal includes some restrictions on mobility within the EU, it would be a significant step forward for highly-skilled migrants considering coming to Ireland, as due to Ireland's decision not to opt in at present to the long-term residents directive, they are unable to move to another member state without losing their right to reside in and return to Ireland. The ICI particularly hopes that if Ireland decides to opt into the blue card proposal, it will also ensure that channels for the legal migration for non-skilled or lower skilled workers are ensured. This would be an indispensable measure in the fight against the increase of work in the grey economy and the exploitation which migrants experience in this area.

The proposal contains a time limit of 30 days within which the authorities must make a decision, extendable to 60 days in exceptional cases, and a right to remedies in the event of refusal. The ICI would welcome the implementation of time limits for the processing of applications and recognises that adequate provisions would have to be made at administrative level to deal with the current delays in the system. Furthermore, the ICI repeats its call for the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism for the review of immigration decisions, as promised in the programme for Government. Such a mechanism would have to be established to facilitate the implementation of the future directive.

The provision contained in the proposal which would allow workers to seek work for a period of three months in the event of unemployment, without losing their right to remain in the State, would be an improvement on the current situation for migrant workers in Ireland whereby when they lose the right to work they may not freely seek alternative employment unless a bridging permit is granted. At present, this is done only on a case-by-case basis.

Clearly, an individual who has made a decision to move with his or her entire family deserves fair treatment in the event that he or she becomes unemployed. The threat of expulsion as soon as, or shortly after, an individual becomes unemployed plays into the hands of unscrupulous employers in that migrant workers may be coerced into accepting worse conditions or keeping quiet about breaches of employment law because their immigration status depends on continued employment.

Chairman

I thank Ms Becker. I invite Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue from the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland to address the committee.

Ms Siobhán O’Donoghue

The Migrants Rights Centre Ireland is a national organisation concerned with migrant workers who are in the most vulnerable situations. It is in this context I make my remarks today. We have been active at European level in calling for a comprehensive and fair immigration policy and we are conscious of the political realities, difficulties and challenges in making progress on a harmonised framework at EU level.

Like others, we feel that Ireland's continuing stance of opting out of directives in the area of immigration and migration is problematic and while appreciating the realities of the common travel area we urge reconsideration of this decision. On a related theme, we seek clarification on the reasons for Ireland's ongoing reservations about the framework decision on racism and xenophobia. Ireland continues to be one of the few countries which has such a reservation. In calling on the Government to opt into the migration related directives, we urge an approach that seeks to place an emphasis on the rights of migrant workers which is consistent with Ireland's public stance, particularly at global level, on promoting and securing rights in general.

I have a number of specific comments to make on the directives under discussion today. I welcome the establishment of an open, transparent and accessible EU admission channel and procedures. These are vital for the reduction of irregular immigration and the growing phenomenon of trafficking for forced labour. Opening up legal migration channels is beneficial to both migrants and the EU. It offers migrants a chance to choose the country in which they want to live in and contribute to and enables EU societies to take full advantage of the benefits of migration.

Economic migrants entering legally are less likely to seek or find employment in the informal or shadow economies and so will be less vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by employers, landlords and emigration-related specialist services which are popping up all over the place. Nevertheless, we are disappointed about the sectoral approach chosen by the European Commission. It will be counter-productive to the aim of more transparent admission channels as it creates more red tape, confusion between various sectors and potentially a hierarchy of rights. In our opinion, this is not consistent with an approach which seeks to secure rights and entitlements for migrant workers. We appreciate that an incremental approach to rights and entitlements is probably necessary. However, what is being proposed is a hierarchy or tiered approach to rights. This is inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families.

Except from the planned directive on seasonal workers, no other proposal is on the table at present. It is not clear how progress will be made on the various proposed directives. The issue of irregular migration is not high on the political agenda at European level. That is why people are concerned that there should be a common EU approach.

We welcome the approach of introducing a single application procedure in the form of a single residence-work permit. This approach will simplify administrative procedures and reduce the amount of red tape. We also welcome the intention to give full access to the EU-wide labour market for all EU nationals and all third country nationals, including refugees, legally residing in the Union. It is an important achievement that the proposal grants legally residing third country nationals treatment which is equal to that afforded to EU nationals in respect of basic socio-economic rights. This directive offers an opportunity to provide a basis for the meaningful application, in spirit if nothing else, of the UN Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families. We note with regret the continued reluctance on the part of Ireland to sign that convention.

A second area of concern is the exclusion of migrant workers who are employed on a seasonal basis. We accept that another directive to deal with this matter is forthcoming. However, the use of seasonal employment is on the increase across Europe and we are aware that migrant workers who come into this category are highly vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination. Furthermore, we are concerned about the discretion granted to member states that will allow them to apply equal treatment with regard to working conditions and freedom of association only to those who are employed. What will be the position in respect of those who are seeking employment or who are between jobs?

On the blue card proposal, we welcome the demand-driven approach. However, the analysis informing the view that demand is confined to high-skilled employment is problematic and flawed. There seems to be a belief that with the move to an increasingly knowledge-based economy, the need for low-skilled workers will diminish. In reality, there has been a net growth in the past decade at both the high and low-skill ends of the labour market. This increased polarisation of the labour market can be explained by the fact that certain low-skilled, low-paid jobs can neither be transported out of the European Union nor can they be replaced by technology. For example, nursing care or cleaning services cannot be provided from outside the EU. We welcome the provisions in this directive that allow family reunification after six months and also those that grant freedom of movement after two years.

Like congress, we are concerned about the "brain drain" issue. We acknowledge that this is reflected in the directive, which assures ethical recruitment and protects human resources in developing countries. There are fears that a level of lip-service is being paid in respect of the brain drain, particularly as the directive is designed to try to attract people with high skills to the European Union in order to meet its needs. The three-month period granted to people to seek new jobs is too short. This period must be extended if it is to be meaningful to migrants.

It is problematic that the proposal is being presented when there is limited free movement for all EU citizens and in Ireland for EU citizens from Romania and Bulgaria. This unequal treatment of EU citizens is unacceptable and is in clear contradiction of the principle of community preference.

While we acknowledge the positive aspects to both directives and the general move towards a harmonised approach or common framework at European level, we are of the view that in political terms these measures will not go far enough and will not address the fundamental problems the European Union faces in the context of the vulnerability of migrant workers and the growth in irregular migration. It will not respond to the reality of the demand for workers into the future. It must also be acknowledged that there is much emphasis and drive behind integration and social inclusion of migrant workers and this must be reflected in how the common framework is advanced.

Chairman

I thank Ms O'Donoghue. Does Mr. O'Sullivan wish to speak on COM (2007) 638 before I take questions?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

Yes, although I was unsure whether I was to take them in sequence.

Chairman

My apologies.

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

I shall briefly provide some information on COM (2007) 638. It is part of a series of measures and it links to the blue card proposal we have spoken about.

Chairman

Excellent.

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

It is aimed at legal migrants from outside the EU. There are two main elements. It first aims to introduce a single application procedure for a single permit giving details of residence status and labour market access. In effect, this means sorting out the immigration and employment status of the prospective migrant at the same time and issuing a card that reflects this composite status. Second, it sets out a common set of rights that all member states would grant to all third country workers.

It is important to highlight that unlike the blue card proposal, this proposal does not specify admission criteria, instead leaving these to member states. The Commission has identified a rights gap regarding third country nationals and nationals of member states. It believes that closing this gap and affording them certain rights and entitlements will recognise the contribution legal migrants make to member states in terms of their tax and social security contributions, as well as reducing unfair competition founded on their status as third country nationals.

The ultimate aim of the proposal, in so far as it deals with rights, is to achieve a level playing field within the EU for all third country nationals who are legally working, irrespective of the member state in which they are resident.

Those covered by this proposal include, with certain exceptions, any third country national given permission to work in a member state regardless of the reason for which he or she was initially granted entry to the member state. Therefore, the proposal would apply to categories of migrants such as work permit holders, refugees and students, but exclude groups such as the non-EEA family members of EU citizens, seasonal workers, asylum seekers and those who already have long-term residence status.

These latter cases are excluded because they either have more favourable status, such as refugees or long-term residents, or their residence is temporary in nature or different conditions apply, such as with asylum seekers.

The proposal provides for applications for residence and work permits to be submitted following a single application procedure and for member states to issue a combined work and residence permit in a uniform format to those eligible for one within three months of the date of application. An exception would be particularly complicated cases. Member states will be prohibited from issuing separate work and residence permits. This will not affect those third country nationals who do not have access to the labour market, so it will not result in migrants who only have permission to reside being issued with permits to both reside and work.

Member states may request a reasonable fee for the service based on the service provided. Applicants will be issued with the reasons for refusal in writing in those cases where their applications are unsuccessful and they will be able to challenge the decision.

Third country workers falling under this proposal will enjoy equal treatment with nationals as regards the following: working conditions; freedom of association and affiliation; education and vocational training; recognition of qualifications; certain branches of social security; payment of acquired pensions when moving abroad; tax benefits; and access to goods and services, including procedures for obtaining housing and the assistance afforded by employment offices. Member states are free to adopt or maintain more favourable provisions than these.

Equal treatment may be restricted in some of these areas to those who have appropriate language proficiency and educational prerequisites in the case of educational and vocational training; to those who have stayed or have the right to stay for at least three years in the case of access to public housing; and to those who are in employment in the case of working conditions, freedom of association, tax benefits, and social security, apart from unemployment benefits.

With regard to the single permit, Ireland does not currently have such a single application procedure as envisaged in the directive. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibility for the issuing of residence permits, which is done through the Garda National Immigration Bureau. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has responsibility for issuing work permits, although the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can exempt people from the requirement to hold a work permit. That is the system as it stands. The two Departments are currently exploring ways in which greater synergies can be brought to the processing of the applications. That work is ongoing.

In Ireland there is no standard set of migrant worker rights. The levels of rights vary depending on the area and the type of employment. It also depends on the rights provided by the individual Department administering those services. Many of the rights contained in this proposal are granted to workers, regardless of nationality but there are other areas where significant differences exist, such as access to third level fees and perhaps housing.

There are a number of key issues in the proposal from an Irish perspective, mainly centring on the entitlement granted to working third country nationals legally present. They include access to social housing on the same basis as Irish nationals and equal treatment as regards third level fees. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has concerns about social assistance and pension provisions in this proposal and the Commission is providing further clarification in the area of rights to the working group. This is at an early stage and clarification is sought on an ongoing basis as to what it will entail. A further issue is that the rights proposal appears to apply to all third country nationals working legally, regardless of why they are granted entry. The domestic immigration system operates on the basis of differentiated entitlements, depending on a person's work or residence status, and a harmonised approach would limit Ireland's flexibility in tailoring its immigration system.

With regard to the other parts of the proposals, there are clear synergies in having a single application procedure for a single permit for work and residence purposes. It would make it easier, for example, for employers to readily check whether a potential employee is legally entitled to work. Administratively, it would facilitate the making of an integrated decision, which would benefit both the State and the migrant. Putting such an arrangement in place would entail significant changes to the operation of the existing functions of the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The impact on existing legislation in this area will also have to be analysed when the final shape of the directive becomes clear.

The proposal is currently at the working party stage and only two meetings have been held. In common with the previous measure, the proposals falls under Title IV of the treaty and the same procedures I described earlier apply. Ireland has not opted into this, nor has the UK to date. The substantive decision will be taken at a later stage, depending on how the directive proceeds.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am sorry I must leave before I receive replies to my questions but I must attend another meeting. However, this is an important issue and I wanted to hear what everybody had to say. I compliment them on their fine presentations.

I refer to the decision to opt out of the proposals, which is separate from the decision to opt out of the final directive. Once the decision is taken and three months have expired, what authority does the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or any other Department have in the negotiations? If Ireland is not happy with the proposals and would like to insert or delete a clause, what are its negotiating rights? Is Ireland simply an observer which can make a statement, to which the other participating member states may or may not listen? In other words, has Ireland a proactive role in framing in the final directive?

What is the demand for a directive of this nature? Does IBEC believe there is such a demand for high skilled workers that a European wide framework should be put in place? How successful is the existing structure in the Department of Enterprise, Trade Employment? The take-up so far is approximately 3,000. How is this working? Have there been glitches or problems? Are there areas that present particular advantages or areas that could be used to greater effect?

With regard to the matters raised by the ICTU, the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, the Charter of Fundamental Rights makes provisions for equal treatment of all Third World nationals who come to work in Ireland. Do the witnesses envisage a situation where, if the charter is adopted in the Lisbon treaty, it will deal with the issues raised, in terms of rights, conditions and so forth? I can detect a negative response from Mr. O'Sullivan, but I would like to hear his interpretation of that and how he sees it operating.

There seems to be a real danger because of the enormous variation in minimum wage rates in different countries. Is Ireland the highest or second highest in terms of its minimum wage? It could pose a danger in terms of the posting of workers from other countries with a lesser wage, which could exacerbate what we are experiencing at present with regard to agency workers, where we do not have a structure in place to deal with their pay and conditions. This leaves scope for the depression of wages, exploitation and so forth.

The question posed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is pertinent. If we have our own system in place and we do not buy into the European system, aspiring highly-qualified workers might believe that it is not worth coming to Ireland because we do not have the same flexibility here as that envisaged in the Europe-wide system. This could mean that the system in Ireland could lose out.

There are currently about 6,000 asylum applications which have not been processed. Does the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment trawl through the applications for people with skills that would warrant a salary in the €35,000 to €60,000 range? Is it envisaged that the new directive will allow countries to recruit from the pool of asylum seekers that are already in those countries?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

On negotiation position, Ireland takes part in all the meetings and discussions and our comments are noted on the same basis as everyone else's. The essential difference in terms of the participation is that, if this comes down to a vote, we will not be one of the voting countries — nor will the United Kingdom or Denmark. If it is adopted at that stage, the opt-in procedure kicks off again.

In terms of participation in the negotiations, we take part in the discussions and make comments and suggestions, which are recorded. There is some recognition on the part of the EU Commission that there is a benefit in those countries which operate the opt-in procedure exercising their opt-in at a later stage if they have not exercised it at the beginning of the process. There is an acknowledgement that a country which has a post-adoption opt-in is still an interested party and the negotiations are taking place on that basis.

Deputy Joe Costello

I presume the corollary is equally true, that because we do not have a vote, they do not have to pay too much attention to our concerns.

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

Our experience to date with regard to these two directives has been that we have found no impediments to putting forward our view.

Deputy Joe Costello

I see.

Chairman

I invite Ms Dixon to answer some questions.

Ms Helen Dixon

Deputy Costello asked about the current green card scheme in Ireland, which is currently considered to be operating well. Approximately 10,000 new employment permits were issued in Ireland last year, of which almost one third were green cards. In the first year of operation, take-up is considered to be quite high. In terms of the high-skills areas included for green card consideration, there is ongoing tracking by the Department — in part through the work of the expert group on future skills needs — of where strategic skills shortages are occurring. The tracking is dynamic as is the ability to react with regard to areas which can be included. To date, feedback on the scheme has been positive, including the comments from IBEC today.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

In answer to the question with regard to whether a demand still exists, it does, particularly in ICT, biotechnology, medical devices and engineering. Every forecast we have seen suggests this is likely to continue in the medium term. For reasons outside the remit of this discussion, since 2001 we have seen a fall off in the number of Irish students applying for science, technology and engineering courses and a gap exists.

We previously spoke about the green card scheme and we feel it is working well. This raises the question as to what would the blue card offer which the green card does not. We must consider this in a global context. Europe competes with the US in particular for this type of talent. If one examines the contribution migrants have made to the US economy in terms of business start-ups and IP applications, one sees they bring an energy and innovation which we require at European level. By not opting into the blue card scheme we potentially exclude ourselves from access to third country nationals who have already made the decision to come to Europe and might choose to move within the EU

In terms of glitches in the scheme, our only reservation is with regard to the intracompany transfer scheme. It is one particular aspect of the arrangements with which we are still not happy. It has a minimum salary requirement of €40,000. In some ways this demonstrates how salary as a means of establishing skills differential is an extremely blunt instrument. ICTU and ourselves have different reasons for objecting to establishing an average salary or a European-wide salary but ultimately it is a blunt instrument.

Ms Esther Lynch

We certainly need the charter so members will not hear me stating we do not need or want it. Does it fix this problem? The answer is "No", and I will explain why. The European treaties contain strong entitlements to equal pay on a gender basis and there is no question about this. It could not be clearer that men and women should be paid the same amount for doing the same job.

However, this clear and specific right is easily destroyed by employing women through an employment agency because they are then compared with other agency workers, all of whom are women. The comparator is not the person one works beside but another agency worker. Unions have already lost a number of cases, not on grounds of gender but on grounds of race.

I wish to comment on two other issues on which direct questions were not posed to me but on which we have a perspective. We are not against the minimum threshold of salary. We stated it is not enough and it should be the minimum threshold plus the equal pay principle. I wish to flag this to Mr. Donohoe. Mr. O'Sullivan is correct that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has the capacity to waive any requirement for a person to hold a work permit and does so for working students. We have invested a great deal of effort into ensuring that the employment regime in this regard is right. According to our colleagues from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, that regime relates to 10,000 workers. The number of working students who enter this country is significantly higher — perhaps by a factor of three or four. Mr. O'Sullivan could probably provide figures in that regard. This area is completely unregulated.

We put forward a number of examples of various "outfits" which pretend to be language schools. Television programmes have illustrated how these establishments pretend to be language schools and take between €5,000 to €10,000 from people. This is merely a way of extracting money from individuals in order to allow them to work.

We are investing a great deal of effort into regulating matters in the area under discussion. At the same time, however, there is another system operated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which does not have any regard to the type of protections we are putting in place in respect of permits.

Chairman

On attracting highly-skilled workers from outside the European Union, is Ms Lynch stating that there is a deficit of talent in this regard in the State? Quite a number of graduates from our institutes of technology have forwarded their CVs to my office because they are seeking employment. We are attracting highly-skilled workers from outside the EU, but is there not a difficulty in that regard when one considers the number of students here who have graduated from our ITs and universities but who remain unemployed?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

I do not believe too many would be unemployed if they possessed the scientific, engineering or technical skills our members are seeking. To be frank, our members cannot find staff with these particular skills. I made it clear at the outset that we do not see this as a substitute for the development of either the skills of long-term migrant residents or those of Irish people. If we can find those with the relevant skills at home, we will do so. However, there are certain specialist high skills which we are obliged to seek outside the Union.

Chairman

I accept that. However, what consultation has taken place with the third level institutions and second level colleges in this State in respect of this matter? It could be some time before the blue card system comes into operation. Is anything being done at present to address the deficit and to highlight for second level students entering third level the opportunities that exist?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

Any discussion on this matter involves some element of backtracking into the education system. Some of the problems in this area revolve, for example, around the standard of mathematics teaching in schools. If only 12.5% of leaving certificate students attain a C1 or higher grade — a prerequisite to pursuing certain third level courses — the number of people who can take up the technology, engineering, science and IT courses, which will allow them to obtain the type of jobs to which the Chairman refers, is significantly reduced. We are working with career guidance counsellors to get the message across in this regard. To highlight the work opportunities that exist, our ICT section runs what is termed the Champions Programme and this facilitates our representatives going into schools. We are working with the institutes of technology and the universities in building up the industry links necessary to stimulate that kind of throughput.

Chairman

In the past questions arose with regard to people from Third World countries with dubious qualifications seeking work here. There were also issues in respect of accreditation and these particularly arose on foot of language difficulties. What procedures will be put in place to verify the qualifications of workers entering the country under this scheme? On the blue card entitlement, will any independent accreditation be available, other than that offered by IBEC? I know from being an employer myself that a qualification could be obtained through an IBEC CV and the accreditation might not be fully authentic.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

The directive makes some reference to that, but it should probably be made more robust. There is much work being done by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland in this regard. It handles approximately 2,000 inquiries per year regarding verification of qualifications and ensuring the comparability of qualifications. Much work has been done in the area over the past 18 months or two years.

Chairman

Does Mr. O'Sullivan wish to comment?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

I will respond to Deputy Costello's questions on asylum seekers. As to whether we assess the high-skills capacity of asylum seekers, this is not done because asylum seekers are not permitted to work. The essential issue of the skill level therefore does not arise.

Chairman

There are people in the country at the moment with qualifications. Is there any due diligence afforded to people who have qualifications for a blue card? Would they be entitled to apply for one?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

Does that relate to people outside the asylum process?

Chairman

I am talking about people who are migrants or asylum seekers in this country. If they have a qualification, will these people have an opportunity to avail of the card? As it stands they would not have an opportunity.

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

They would have to proceed through the asylum process first and have their cases determined. An asylum seeker would not be able to avail of this and they are not covered by the directive. It is aimed at attracting people from outside. With asylum seekers, there are risks and the rationale for the current position has resulted from pull factors, that somebody would make an asylum claim for the purposes of gaining work.

For somebody who has not yet considered making an asylum claim, the directive could apply. Depending on circumstances, such a person could consider coming here as a high-skilled worker.

Chairman

Is the category retrospective?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

No, the people would decide in advance of coming. The people in the system would have to be dealt with under the asylum process.

Ms Hilkka Becker

I did not wish to speak over my colleague. Deputy Costello's questions raised two issues regarding the difficulty of what I termed earlier as cherry-picking. The first is the question of asylum seekers and the possibility of using their skills where applicable and appropriate within the high-skills sector.

Other EU member states are bound by the reception directive, which Ireland has chosen not to opt into. It provides that asylum seekers, when they have not received a final decision within six months, are entitled to access the labour market. As Ireland has not opted into the directive, it is an indication of how difficult it is to opt into one process and not another. The matter does not gel as in another member state an asylum seeker would be able to access the blue card system after six months. We have the difficulty that we do not quite fit.

The same is shown up through glitches in the existing green card system, where people on a green card should have preferential access to long-term residence provisions that are currently applied in Ireland on an administrative level only. It does not happen in a clear and transparent way, as for example the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment website indicates there is access after two years to long-term residence but the website of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not reflect this. It indicates five years as the required period and makes no exception for green card holders.

Had we opted into the long-term residence directive, we would have a clear and transparent system and there would be access to permanent status after the required time. We would then be able to opt into the blue card system and provide preferential access after two years to blue card holders, equivalent to green card holders here at the moment.

This shows up the difficulty of picking and choosing. We repeat the call that Ireland should opt into all immigration-related measures at EU level and try to influence them and make them better from the outset, rather than participate in working groups or join them after three months. It should participate fully in the drawing up of the directives.

Deputy Damien English

We have heard a great deal of good stuff and we will have to go over it again before we produce our final report. The Department said it is a fast-track procedure but it will take 90 days. That may be fast compared with the current system, given the delays in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but 90 days is not fast-tracking. Even the 30 to 60-day proposal where an individual wishes to change jobs is not fast-tracking. It does not suit employers or employees. Ireland is opting out. Who proposed the 90-day provision? Is every other member state as slow as Ireland in making these decisions? I do not understand why it takes so long and how that can be called fast-tracked.

Greater recognition of professional qualifications is positive. Access to health insurance and education have been mentioned. Is that for the person or his or her family? For example, companies head hunt foreigners to work here but they discover when their children turn 18 that they are not entitled to free college fees, which is a major deterrent. We want to attract these workers but the issue is not only about the individual's rights but also those of his or her family. I would like the delegations to elaborate on that.

One group stated member states are free to set the salary threshold above the level mentioned in the proposal but the Department said they are not free to adopt more favourable conditions. Is that a contradiction? I am not overly happy with wage setting and I would like more background information on setting it at three times the minimum wage. I presume all states do not have a minimum wage. What will happen in that case? I do not like that idea and I would like to know more about what is behind it. Mr. Donohoe stated it is a step in the right direction but I get the impression he would like more steps to be taken. Will he elaborate on that?

The provision regarding 30 years of age is very strange. I am not sure whether I am better or worse off having read the document. Where does this figure come from? If I am 45 and I decide to retrain in college, it should not matter what age I am. It is a crazy provision. Will those who have not commented on this respond?

One group stated people will be able to move between member states after two years but another said they can then only apply for permission to move, which will take between 30 and 60 days. Which is it? Is the proposal being interpreted differently? It would be strange if one was restricted for two years, that one could not then move. If one is restricted in a country for two years, can one scrap the process and start over again by applying for a new blue card rather than have to wait for two years before moving to a different member state?

Ms Helen Dixon

The 90-working day provision is an attempt in the proposal to provide something achievable and it may be an outside limit for processing. It is probably agreed that 90 days is not a particularly fast processing time but it gives recognition to the complexity of the types of application that could be submitted.

The common set of rights outlined in the proposal will apply only to the blue card holder and not to his or her family members. Member states are entitled, under the proposal, to set a salary threshold which would be higher than three times the minimum wage. Ireland could, for example, set its salary threshold for the blue card scheme at €80,000 per annum, as opposed to approximately €53,000, which meets the minimum requirement.

The issue of not being free to adopt more favourable conditions relates to the fact that member states would not be allowed to adopt an entry criterion where the salary was less than three times the minimum wage. It would prevent Ireland, for example, setting a salary threshold of €40,000. Otherwise, we would have an advantage in terms of attracting blue card workers. Furthermore, given that blue card workers, once they have completed two years in the first member state, can move to another member state, it would mean that member states would be open to having blue card entrants come in who had not met very highly-qualified criteria in the first place. Another question was posed regarding wage setting and why it was included in the directive. Its purpose is to protect member states and to ensure that we are all operating very high level criteria in terms of these being highly-qualified workers in the first instance.

The derogation for those under 30 years of age is an attempt to provide a consistent framework whereby member states could potentially derogate from the high salary threshold. It is considered that, for example, workers who have completed PhDs and come later to the workforce might not be able to command salaries of three times the minimum wage. It is an attempt to provide a consistent framework so that some member states are not making the derogation on salary against criteria that other member states would not be willing to recognise.

On the issue of moving from one member state to another, it is correct that after two years a blue card holder can move freely to another member state. He or she would then have up to one month to register with the competent authority in the second member state.

Chairman

Thank you very much.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

My comment regarding a step in the right direction was specifically related to the highly-qualified employees directive. However, we have concerns around the salary and our own green card system is an acknowledgement of that. In our system, a range of jobs is outlined in the €30,000 to €60,000 per annum salary range, but they have been identified because Ireland has skills shortages in those particular areas. That demonstrates the flexibility that would be required and is the reason we do not think the directive has gone far enough.

There is an ambiguity in that section of Article 4 which reads: "This Directive shall not affect the right of Member States to adopt or retain more favourable provisions concerning conditions of entry and residence for persons to whom it applies, except for entry into the first Member State." It appears that the discussion has centred on salary in this context, but there may be other conditions of entry that are relevant — for example, some states might have a points system. On the issue of subsidiarity, we would like to see the deletion of the phrase "except for entry into the first Member State".

Chairman

Thank you very much.

Ms Siobhán O’Donoghue

There is a general difficulty with equating skills with income. Nursing, for example, is obviously a highly-skilled job, but many nurses do not earn more than €53,000 per annum. The same would be true of teachers and so forth. We are limiting the discussion by equating income with skills in a bald way. That is very problematic because, in my experience, many people who work in the health sector are absolutely appalled when they arrive here, having been recruited, only to find that their families do not enjoy the same rights as they do. Many of those workers quickly look to other countries to which they can move, where their families, particularly their children, will enjoy an acceptable level of rights. At present, when children turn 18 they either get a work permit and we all know the difficulties associated with this, particularly for 18 year olds, or they are considered international students despite the fact they may have been in the country for ten, 11 or 12 years. They are suddenly in limbo and this is a real problem.

Deputy Damien English

I accept the time limit of 90 days was established to leave a little space. However, I fear that when such a limit is set it becomes the norm and is acceptable. It is no longer a target. We should set a lower target and aim for it. I do not feel 90 days is acceptable.

Deputy Seán Connick

I welcome all of the witnesses and thank them for their detailed and informative presentations. I have a number of questions, some of which have already been asked and answered so I will skip over them. The skills shortfall has been dealt with but I would like to ask IBEC about the issue of asylum seekers. We have a refugee centre in New Ross which houses 53 men, all of whom earn €19 per week. Many of them have qualifications and some of them are in the facility for two or three years. It seems a waste of energy and ability. I do not suggest that we could make use of them in a derogatory sense but they could make a contribution to Irish society.

I seek clarification from Ms Dixon on the blue card scheme. If we attract a person under the blue card scheme, do difficulties arise with regard to family reunification? Is such a family entitled to the same health care and education entitlements as an Irish or EU citizen? I do not understand the age limit and it seems an awkward method of dealing with the issue. Why have an age limit? It is peculiar.

With regard to the issue of three times the minimum wage, will ICTU clarify whether something similar already exists? I am aware of people trying to employ nurses from the Philippines. One cannot offer €20,000 and send the application to the Department because it will state the nurse is not being paid enough and should be paid €30,000 or whatever the case may be.

The minute people arrive and seek asylum we should run a skills register to establish their qualifications. I am surprised we do not do so. Perhaps we do so but I am not aware of it. I hear people express concerns about the brain drain but the aeroplanes go both ways. I have two nephews with science qualifications. One is in Denmark and the other is in Saudi Arabia. We must be mindful of the brain drain.

With regard to migrants' rights, we consider ourselves champions of human rights throughout the world and we are good at it. At the same time, I am concerned about the à la carte approach we are starting to take. I welcome the recent legislation introduced in the Dáil, particularly the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. I know some will state the Bill does not go far enough, but it is an attempt to address the changing Ireland we encounter in today’s market.

To return to the fast-track issue, my experience of dealing with it at constituency level is in the transport sector. People go to South Africa or Bulgaria to bring people to work here. Why does it take so long? Business moves at a fast pace and we cannot operate at the same pace as the Department seems to operate. If someone applies for a six-month permit, why can it not be issued quickly? The process seems to be bogged down in red tape.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

Perhaps my colleagues from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform might comment specifically on asylum seekers. IBEC's view is that it is a waste of energy. I agree with Deputy Connick. It is also a waste of what economists call "human capital". I know our trade union colleagues do not like this phrase because there is also the human aspect. If people are ready and willing to work here legally and work is available for them, we should find ways of expediting their efforts.

A more general issue is raised around whom we used to call "non-nationals". Non-Irish nationals work here at levels well below their abilities. Again, it is slightly outside the context of this discussion but some of the efforts being made on integration need to be speeded up. The conversation has not moved on completely but we have seen a change in emphasis during the past year or two, whereby we must emphasise how we integrate newcomers, both from their point of view in being able to live rich and rewarding lives in this country and also from the point of view of the economy in being able to benefit from their contribution.

Ms Esther Lynch

With regard to the point made on those seeking asylum, congress supports what Deputy Connick stated. I have met a number of colleagues who had to flee because their trade union work in their home countries was not as welcome as it is in Ireland. As far as I remember, we recommended a figure of six weeks, not six months. If people are ready, it is a waste of their talents.

The use of the age of 30 years is related to the Deputy's question on the amount of money involved, as they are both clumsy measures. If one wants to state someone who is newly qualified might not be able to command a salary at the top end of the wage scale, it would make more sense to state a derogation should not be linked to a particular age but to how recently a person qualified.

Deputy Damien English

It is easy to agree in that regard.

Ms Esther Lynch

The amount of money involved is also a clumsy measure. In Ireland it will probably work better than in other European countries. As far as I remember, we have two employment permits, one for positions with a salary of €60,000 and above — a green card and considered highly skilled — and the other for positions with a salary fuzzily grounded between €30,000 and €60,000. For some reason, highly skilled individuals working in these jobs only earn between these amounts but I accept they are the agreed figures. Health and IT workers both fall into this category, agreed by IBEC and the Department. I cannot answer the question as to why people who do such important jobs as caring for us, our children and families are only paid this amount. I do not stand over it. From the point of view of congress, this is not enough. It is too clumsy and akin to taking the age of 30 years as guaranteeing something. An employer should only be able to employ people with an EU blue card if he or she pays them the exact same amount as the local workforce with the same terms and conditions. I have highlighted two ways in which laws allow employers to avoid this. An employment agency can pay the agency workers badly, in which cases it can avoid this. Posting is the other way to do it. For example, the worker could be recruited at €6 a hour, which is the high-skill threshold in Bulgaria, and he or she would be posted to work in Ireland. Although such workers are entitled to be paid the same, where is the enforcement mechanism?

Deputy Seán Connick

My question relates to the current position whereby, in specific sectors, a company cannot bring somebody in and pay him or her less than €30,000 a year.

Ms Esther Lynch

That is correct.

Ms Helen Dixon

With regard to the Deputy's question on the blue card and family reunification, the family reunification rights envisaged in the proposal are analogous to those we currently operate under the green card scheme. Deputy English's earlier question related to whether the articles in the proposal concerning rights referred only to the blue card holder and did not include his or her family. My understanding is the rights refer to the holder only. Families who are reunified come under current national requirements in terms of access to services and the labour market. We operate a spousal dependent permit scheme, through which family members are able to access the labour market and there is no fee for permits of this type.

Deputy Seán Connick

Does that entitle them to health and education services?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

This area is complicated, not least because the blue card directive cross references two other directives which we have not opted into. Where the blue card directive deals with family reunification and long-term residency, it refers to those directives. If Ireland opted into the directive under discussion and did not opt into the other directives, the rights would apply differently in Ireland than in other member states because it does not participate in the other directives to which it relates. The directive, where it deals with rights, specifically relates to the rights of the card holder. The rights of family members, in so far as they are not provided for in other directives, are granted by the various service providers under national law, which have different regulations in regard to access to certain services.

Different approaches are taken to services in other countries, particularly in the education sector. Ireland and others offer free university fees whereas some countries charge a fee. An attempt to provide a common set of rights would result in a different application in member states if people are treated the same as one's own nationals. It is a complicated area and it is one of the issues we are clarifying with the Commission but, under the directive, the rights are applicable to the blue card holder and not his or her family members. Their rights fall to be dealt with in a number of different ways through whatever EU instruments member states participate in and through the different national laws that apply in those cases.

With regard to access to education, if somebody is resident here, he or she faces different requirements under the habitual residence condition for accessing social welfare, different eligibility requirements in the education sector and different requirements are imposed by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We have a mixed area and I would like to give a simple answer but, unfortunately, one does not exist. We could offer to do a research exercise ourselves. We would be interested in gathering more information on this and providing a more detailed exposition to the committee in writing.

Chairman

That would be appreciated and it would greatly help to clarify issues raised earlier. We would be delighted to receive the results of that research before we make our final recommendations. It has been indicated that the United Kingdom has opted out. Are we very much influenced by it? Why can we not take our own firm line and not be totally influenced by it? I have noticed on several occasions that our position has been influenced by its actions. Can we not stand alone on this issue?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

The common travel area is a key consideration in any migration measure, particularly one that gives groups of people the right to come to one half of that area but not the other. This relates directly to why Ireland did not opt into the directive relating to long-term residence, which has been mentioned. That directive gave certain travel rights to people to move to another member state. Our adopting it would have resulted in people having a right to move to Ireland and, subsequently, having uncontrolled access to the United Kingdom. The price we pay for the open Border between the North and South is the harmonisation of immigration regimes in the two states.

Chairman

Is Mr. O'Sullivan saying our decision is totally influenced by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

It is strongly influenced by it. One would have to make the decision on a case by case basis. It is rare for Ireland and the United Kingdom to diverge. The only recent case I recall relates to the researchers directive. It was not considered to have significant implications because the scheme was highly regulated affecting a small group.

Chairman

Did the recent court case involving hotel workers impact on the minimum wage issue?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

I do not think it did. The registered employment agreements set out conditions in the hotel trade. The fundamental principle, the operation of those agreements, is not affected. The amounts involved were small and agreement was reached.

Chairman

The subsidiarity approach and the role of the national parliaments of host countries in bringing about a wage structure was referred to. There is a lack of harmonisation of the minimum wage. It is 65 cent per hour in one country and €9.65 in this country, a massive divergence. The point was made, I believe by the Migrants Rights Centre Ireland, that a derogation should be given to assure low skilled workers of a right of entry. I believe someone made a comment to the effect that low skilled workers under the age of 30 years should be allowed entry. Will someone comment on those two points of harmonisation of the minimum wage throughout Europe and the possibility of a derogation with regard to low skilled workers? If an employer is offering €9.65 per hour, compared to 65 cent, he or she should have no difficulty in finding people wishing to avail of the scheme. Mention has been made of salary levels of €30,000 and €60,000. How can those salary levels be ring-fenced in a European agreement when there is no harmonisation of the minimum wage?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

That is precisely why we are against using the salary criteria. The contributors, for their own reasons, have repeatedly made the point that the salary is a blunt instrument. We take the view that the individual employer and employee should be free to negotiate a salary. I raised the issue of the green card and the wide number of occupations that come between the €30,000 and €60,000 salary levels. There is a list of about 50 occupations including chartered and certified accountants, actuaries, economists, statisticians, medical practitioners, etc. We sought that flexibility at a national level to meet the requirements of the economy at a particular time. This is the reason we are suggesting that we cannot harmonise across sectors and economies.

Chairman

There is a significant difficulty with regard to the naturalisation of people and those looking for work visas in various categories. We are now talking about the green card. There are difficulties such as the obligation on employers to advertise in the national press and with FÁS for the position, the different categories of visa on offer and the red tape involved. The decision on whether the visa will be granted is totally discretionary. I put it to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment that there is a lack of clarity on the issuance of green cards.

Mr. Tony Donohoe

I agree.

Chairman

We are now talking about blue cards, but there is already a difficulty with green cards. The availability of green cards is not widely known. There is a certain element among employers with no difficulty, but rank and file employers encounter difficulties in getting work visas granted. It is already discouraging for employers and it is possible the difficulties could transpose to the issuing of blue cards.

There is also a difficulty in the case of people who have applied for naturalisation. The question of whether it was two or five years was raised. I know of people who have applied for five years and have been left a long time. With regard to reunification, people who have sought the entry of a spouse have encountered much difficulty. There are also difficulties relating to the appeals boards and the number of people who have the right to appeal to stay in the country. The negotiation of the right of entry into Ireland on a daily basis is fraught with difficulties.

Ms Helen Dixon

Full details on the application processes for green cards, work permits and the various permit types are set out on the website of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have close links with the IDA and IBEC in terms of promoting this material.

Chairman

Is there not a difficulty in the service sector with the interpretation of the categories that apply and the qualification necessary to get in? I know of situations where, despite people having the qualification, it is a matter of the interpretation of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment as to whether a permit will be granted. A highly-skilled person must go through the process. The employer must still advertise in the local press and people can apply for the job. Such people may not have the qualification the employer wants, but because of the choice of people available the employer cannot bring in the highly-skilled person that he or she wishes to employ.

Ms. Helen Dixon

The details on the website outline the current policy. It is considered that, for the most part, we are capable of meeting labour shortages from the EU 27 member states labour market open to Irish employers. For the high skills areas there is a comprehensive list setting out grounds under which green cards will be offered. There is also a section on the website outlining categories which are ineligible for new applications for permits. These are areas of labour shortage now considered ineligible.

Chairman

Would the Department contemplate keeping it simple? There is a certain level of knowledge in the public domain. Could further information on the criteria for availing of these facilities, green cards, visas and naturalisation, be put into the public domain to simplify the process?

Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan

I am probably slightly constrained in commenting on what the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is delivering. There are significant delays in certain areas and there is more to be done to provide public information on immigration services. The Department is working on strategies to deal with the backlog and to provide information. Various groups have given us feedback on the information that migrants seek and do not get. Greater clarification helps everybody on both sides of the system, whether customers or those delivering the service. That point is well made.

Chairman

The greatest investment for any employer is competent personnel. Through dealing with this on behalf of employers I know that they have great difficulty getting through the red tape and experience uncertainty before the appeals tribunal in getting sanction for staff members to remain in the country. Determination of these matters takes a long time. It is a serious difficulty. While the blue card concept is welcome, there is such difficulty in the issuing of visas that highly skilled people are earning €19 a week while waiting for an independent body to give them accreditation for their capabilities and competencies. These people would like to work but bureaucratic red tape restricts them, especially people from Bulgaria and Romania who are treated differently from those from the other EU member states.

Deputy Damien English

Maybe Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms Dixon will respond later to the committee on the argument about pay levels at three times the level of the minimum wage. Congress put forward the view that the level should respect the wage a person already receives in the job. We discussed this at length in the debate about agency workers. Some countries give agency workers the collective wage in that area, which works well. I would appreciate comments later on that point.

We would have a right to offer that because we have two types of green card. An annual income of €30,000 is only twice the minimum wage but that is all that many nurses receive, whereas under this directive a nurse should receive €45,000. That would be correct but it is a separate issue. The result could be that people coming into the country could receive much higher wages than those already in the jobs, which would lead to other problems. What will Ireland's position be when it comes to discussing this later? It makes sense to find some other way to deal with this but not necessarily at three times the minimum wage. That does not seem right.

Chairman

How great is the skill deficit here now in light of the 10,000 green cards issued? Were 33% of those for skilled workers?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

Yes, 10,000 employment permits generally were issued, a third of which were green cards.

Ms Helen Dixon

A total of 23,000 permits were issued last year, of which 10,000 were new and 13,000 were renewal permits. Of the 10,000 new permits, approximately one third were green cards as opposed to spousal or work permits.

Chairman

Is that from outside the EU?

Ms Helen Dixon

It relates to a wide variety of countries from outside the EEA.

Chairman

What were the main categories of employees?

Ms Helen Dixon

They would mainly have been in the medical, ICT and financial services areas.

Deputy Damien English

Are the figures lower than originally envisaged?

Ms Helen Dixon

It was considered that one third of permits issued was a good take-up in the first 11 months of operation.

Chairman

In light of the global economic climate, particularly as it relates to the US and Asian countries, will there be a consolidated opinion on projections for the future or does the position remain as buoyant as ever?

Mr. Tony Donohoe

It will obviously not be considered as buoyant in the short term. We referred earlier to the expert group on future skills, which uses data provided by FÁS and the ESRI in respect of skills projections. In that context, it considers both a low-growth and a high-growth scenario. Whichever scenario one examines, we can guarantee that we are seeking higher-skilled workers in the categories under discussion. It could be argued that a potential slowdown will make the competition for talented and skilled workers more intense.

Ms Siobhán O’Donoghue

There is a correlation between the growth in demand for high-skill workers and the position as regards low-skill services jobs. An infrastructure tends to build up around high-income positions. I refer here to what is an across-the-board for low-income workers in the areas of, among others, leisure, care and cleaning. That fact is often left out of the wider debate.

Across Europe, there has been a growth in these areas. We presume that jobs at the low-income level will be filled. They are being filled by people from within the European Union at present. However, given the growth in other economies within the EU, the indications are that the demographic will change. However, that is not actually a reality. We are aware of this from our day-to-day work at the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. We have noticed an increase in the number of people who are being employed on an irregular basis.

Even though it is not possible to obtain work permits to employ people, there is still a demand for certain individuals to provide child care in private homes. When restrictions were in place at EU level to prevent people from the newer accession states entering the older member states, there was a corresponding increase in irregular migration. People still took on these jobs but they did so on an irregular basis. That is the reality with which we must deal.

Chairman

Is it not the case that many people are returning to their home countries at present? I refer, in particular, to Polish citizens. People had high expectations when they came to Ireland but they discovered that we have a high cost of living. Despite individuals possessing the relevant qualifications, there can be major language difficulties. How are we going about attracting people to Ireland who will be happy here?

Ms Siobhán O’Donoghue

We have a globalised economy and a globalised labour force. Immigration into Poland is on the increase, as is emigration out of that country. Every country is going to have inward and outward migration flows. In the future, Irish people who graduate from college will seek employment in Denmark, South Africa and Saudi Arabia, partly out of choice but also in the interest of gaining experience and developing specialties. The position will be similar for other countries. That is the reality of a globalised labour force. It is always difficult for a state to try to build a legislative and policy basis in infrastructure to reflect that fluidity. Even where there is an economic downturn and there have been high expectations about what can be delivered in a particular job, we must somehow acknowledge the reality that there will be an inward and outward flow, which reflects the global market.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan and Ms Dixon. It has been a very detailed debate. I apologise for any confusion caused, as I did not realise we were discussing the issues separately. I also thank Ms Lynch, Ms Becker, Ms O'Donoghue and their colleagues for their presentation and answering our questions. The session has been very informative and will no doubt help the committee in finalising its very important scrutiny report. We would appreciate a one-page synopsis of critical areas and hope to furnish a copy of our report to the delegates. It will also be sent to the Government and, if necessary, debated in the Chamber at some stage. A detailed one-page submission will give us very concise information to consider. I apologise for the long delay before the meeting commenced.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until noon on Tuesday, 8 April 2008.