I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, to the Chamber.
Employment Permits Bill 2022: Committee Stage
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 10, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“ “non-consultant hospital doctor” means a person who is employed as a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007, other than a person registered in the Specialist Division within the meaning of that section;”.
Amendments No. 1 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 17 to 26, inclusive, and 35 to 37, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Acting Chairperson. I would like to welcome Deputy Michael Ring and his guests, Seán and Martina.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to present the Employment Permits Bill for consideration by the Seanad today. I thank my predecessors, the Minister of State, Deputy Neale Richmond, and Deputy Damien English, for their work on this important legislation.
The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate and update the existing employment permits law. It contains a number of key improvements, including the change of employer option, the introduction of a new seasonal employment permit and the facilitation of a more agile employment permits system through the movement of operational details from primary to secondary legislation for easier modification, as labour market needs require.
Amendment No. 1 provides a new definition for non-consultant hospital doctors who are eligible for the two-year multi-site general employment permit. My officials have actively engaged with officials in the Department of Health to ensure the proposed definition, and the associated provisions, result in a more efficient procedure for these critically important workers. There has been a considerable amount of interaction with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that provisions be fully operational, and appropriate, to the needs of the health service. The new definition underpins the provisions contained in the proposed new sections of the Bill as set out in Chapter 5, grant of an employment permit, and section 31, employment of non-consultant hospital doctors.
Amendment No. 2 deletes the definition of "public health facility". That is necessary because we need to insert "a person" instead of "public health facility" as the term to describe the employer hospital under the employment arrangements for these doctors, which is provided under section 31.
This will ensure that all non-consultant hospital doctors employed in the State will have the same beneficial conditions applied to their employment permits irrespective of whether they are employed in the public system, HSE, section 38 hospitals, agencies, private hospitals or bodies under section 39 of the Health Act 2004.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 26, inclusive, are related to non-consultant hospital doctors. These amendments all relate to section 31 concerning the employment of non-consultant hospital doctors. Again, it inserts the word "person" in place of "public health facility" as the term used to describe the employer hospital under these employment arrangements.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, relate to non-consultant hospital doctors. They are technical amendments to section 43(7) on the termination of employment to ensure consistency with the amendments referred to in the previous amendments, which substitute the word "person" for "public health facility" to clarify the employer entities to be covered under the non-consultant hospital doctor permit provision.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 11, to delete line 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3, 10, 11, 13 to 15, inclusive, 38 and 39 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 11, line 13, to delete “same”.
These are technical amendments dealing with minor typographical corrections. I hope we can agree that without debate.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No.4:
In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Report on seasonal work
3. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the conditions and wages of workers holding a permit for seasonal work.”.
The Minister of State is very welcome to the House. She might not be aware that much work has been done by the Houses and Departments on the rights of migrants and integration. My colleagues and I in the Civil Engagement Group have always been passionate about social justice. In our personal and professional lives, we are very committed to raising awareness and taking measures to alleviate the social inequalities and deprivation faced by many living in Ireland. Our economy depends heavily on the commitment of migrant workers and the essential skills they bring to our industries through their respective roles. Earlier this year, RTÉ reported that of the 2.7 million people in employment, 20% are non-Irish.
Despite the diversity of our society, racism and discrimination still exists, as we all know, and is experienced by people in a variety of ways. As legislators, we must strike a balance between meeting the demands of the labour market and upholding the rights and dignity of those who come here to alleviate our shortcomings. We must ensure there are safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place to support participation in employment and facilitate workplace retention. These amendments are designed to create such mechanisms within the framework of the Bill.
Employment is much more than a source of income. It is a place where relationships are formed and community ties are built. For those coming to live and work in Ireland, it is often their only opportunity for social integration. The connection between work and social inclusion has been long established. The Minister of State will be familiar with the work my colleagues and I have done on poverty, discrimination, mental health, integration and work-life balance. If the Bill truly seeks to create a more responsive and flexible system, we must ensure that it is underpinned by our understanding of how these factors intersect and influence the personal lives and well-being of those living in Ireland.
I thank the Civil Engagement Group for all of its work on this. I am aware of the Senator's passion for social justice and the rights of all workers, and I appreciate and value that. The amendment calls for a report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the conditions and wages of workers holding a seasonal employment permit. The Senator is correct; for such workers it is not just about work but also experiencing our country and social inclusion.
I understand the concerns she has outlined, but I will not accept the amendment and I will explain why. The plan is to introduce a rights-based pilot scheme in 2025, designed by a multidisciplinary advisory group that involves sectoral representatives, migrant advocacy groups and other Departments and agencies. In the first instance, the pilot will only be available to the horticultural sector, specifically soft fruit pickers, and will be restricted to a small number of employers and workers. I assure the Senator that the pilot will be rigorously monitored and evaluated. Additional resources have been provided to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, for the purpose of inspections and I expect it will be proactive regarding seasonal employment permits.
The findings of the pilot scheme will decide how we develop the scheme, and for which sectors and what duration. It is my intention that the outcome of this evaluation will be published and made freely available on the Department's website. For that reason, I feel we have this covered and I will not accept the amendment.
How stands the amendment?
I will withdraw it, with a view to resubmitting it. Maybe we could have a discussion going forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Report on dependent permit holders
3. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the labour market access available to spouses of employment permit holders, particularly looking to the gender impact.”.
We are very concerned about the inequity permit holders will experience in terms of reunification with their families. Last week, hundreds of migrant workers held a demonstration outside the offices of the Minister for Justice, Deputy Helen McEntee, in protest at policies that keep them separated from their loved ones. These policies pose challenges for permit holders across all categories. During a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health this morning, of which I am a member, we heard that doctors face significant delays, despite the policy stating that their family can join them immediately.
For those on regular permits, the situation is even more challenging. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland found that the most common sectors of non-national employment are care and domestic work, restaurants, retail, hospitality and fisheries, with one in ten workers experiencing exploitation. According to the Department's records, employment permits issued for the care sector account for a significant number.
Migrant care workers, many of whom are registered nurses in their countries of origin, must wait one year before they can seek reunification. This reunification can only happen if the care worker can demonstrate an ability to provide for their family, which is often not possible due to low pay in the sector. This results in a policy discrepancy whereby migrants working in the sector are brought to Ireland under the impression that their families can join them, but then realise a year later it is not possible due to the pay and conditions they are subject to while they remain in employment here.
We risk creating a system whereby we are separating people from their families so that they can come to Ireland and care for our loved ones. These amendments speak to these concerns and discrepancies. According to a joint report issued by ActionAid and the National Women's Council earlier this year, 80% of paid care workers in Ireland are women. The amendment provides oversight of the conditions and wages of permit workers, as well as outlining labour market access to spouses of permit holders with a focus on gender impact.
The amendment calls for a report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the labour market access available to spouses of employment permit holders. It looks in particular to the gender impact, which I appreciate is the lens the Civil Engagement Group is focusing on. I thank the Senator for the intervention. She has made an important point.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment because spousal access to the labour market and family reunification are the policy responsibility of the Department of Justice and, therefore, fall outside of the scope of this Bill. Senators may be aware that last week the Minister for Justice announced that the eligible spouses and partners of general employment and intracorporate transferee permit holders, namely those who are already in the State and have been granted permission to live in Ireland, can now access the labour market without the need for an employment permit. Current and future permit holders whose spouses or partners are not in the State will still need to apply for family reunification after 12 months, as things currently stand.
Although one such family reunification has been granted, these spouses or partners will be able to work without the need for a separate employment permit. These are positive measures that recognise the valuable contribution economic migrants make to our economy and society, as the Senator has outlined. It will also enhance Ireland's reputation as an attractive place to work and to do business.
I also note that the wider issue of family reunification waiting periods, as raised by the Senator, is the subject of an ongoing review by the Department of Justice. I am sure an announcement on progress will be made in due course. Unfortunately, this matter is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and therefore falls outside the scope of this Bill, so I cannot accept the amendment.
I will withdraw the amendment with a view to resubmitting it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Report on workers’ rights
3. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the terms, conditions and remuneration afforded to workers holding regular permits and seasonal permits broken down by sectoral employment.”
While we accept the need for a more robust system for personal permits, which is being established with this Bill, we must be mindful that the system does not facilitate addressing worrying trends emerging within certain industries. It is important to know that these permits are not going to be isolated to sectors that may be typically associated with seasonal permit use. In the consultancy and tech sector, companies like Accenture, Amazon, Google and Meta are making use of permits, while at the same time making permanent staff redundant. All of these companies announced significant reductions in staff numbers in the last year. In 2023, Accenture made 1,290 of its 6,500 staff redundant. The Irish Times reported that this was out of proportion to the 2.5% decrease in staff it announced for its total workforce worldwide. In 2024, Accenture applied for 78 permits, Amazon applied for 269, Google applied for 171 and Meta applied for 49. We received reports that staff from these companies who facilitated the training of permit workers were then later made redundant. The question that must be asked is whether staff working on less secure permits are replacing permanent staff living and working here. Are we giving these companies the capacity to abuse this permit system and create more precarious conditions for their staff? Are we undermining a critically important part of our tax base by making these permits available to these types of companies in this way? Amendment No. 6 speaks to the need for oversight of this type of application of the Bill so that we can ensure this is not the case.
I thank the Senator very much. "No" is the answer to her question. We do not believe we are doing so. There is a lot of oversight baked into this system. I appreciate the Senator's intention, but I am not in a position to accept the amendment. The amendment seeks a report to review the terms, conditions and remuneration afforded to workers holding regular permits and seasonal permits, broken down by sectoral employment, to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. There are 66,000 active employment permits of various types right across a broad spectrum of sectors. Conducting a review of the type suggested would be very onerous. It would require significant time and resources that we do not have and that would not be put to good use. What I can say, and I want to reassure Senator Black on this, is that I take very seriously the rights of all workers, not least potentially vulnerable migrant workers. My officials can and do instruct the Workplace Relations Commission to undertake inspections to ensure that the terms and conditions of migrant workers are being upheld, including in line with their contract of employment and permit. That is critical to what Senator Black has spoken about with the particular companies she mentioned.
The consequences for breaches of employment permit legislation include the revocation of the employment permit or prosecution. Penalties, including fines and imprisonment, are all set out under the legislation. It is also the case that when an employer seeks to renew an employment permit, checks are made to ensure the permit holder has been paid and has been treated in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in their employment contract, as per the original permit application. Where discrepancies are discovered, a permit renewal can be refused. That is a very important point.
The permit system operates from a vacancy-led perspective. That should clarify the point Senator Black made earlier. The 50:50 rule ensures that all companies give preference to domestic and EEA workers in the first instance. Anyone experiencing a breach of employment rights should make complaints to the WRC for inspection and remediation because that is what we need people to do.
This Bill introduces the change-of-employer option, which will allow workers on certain, but not all, employment permits to move to a new employer after a prescribed period. We plan to provide for a period of nine months, after which there would be no need to apply for a new permit to move. The introduction of flexibility and transferability will strengthen the employment rights of migrant workers. Ireland has a robust employment rights framework and I am confident that employment permit holders are protected in the same way as Irish workers and that Irish workers are fully protected also.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before I move to amendment No. 7, I welcome the staff and students of the Central Technical Institute, Raheen College, in Tipperary, who are the guests of Deputy Lowry. I hope they enjoy the rest of their day.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Report on right to unionise
3. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining measures taken to ensure that workers holding both regular and seasonal permits have a right to organise and to collective bargaining in their respective sectors.”.
In 2021, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission published its report, Monitoring Decent Work in Ireland, which highlighted the prevalence of discrimination and inequity in the employment sector. The report found that workers from religious and ethnic minorities experienced much higher levels of discrimination, higher pay inequalities, poorer working conditions, lower trade union or staff association membership, and more instances of bullying and exploitation within the workplace. Therefore, we cannot ignore the power dynamic that exists between an employer and permit holders whom they employ. Given this dynamic, the potential for exploitation is much more pronounced and, too often, workers are disillusioned by the conditions here, having been misled and misinformed. Without oversight to ensure that permit holders have the right to organise and collectively bargain in their respective sectors, we leave many non-national permit workers in vulnerable positions and potentially create a cycle of exploitation.
The point Senator Black makes is a very interesting one. She is right in what she has said. It may be feasible to include a reference to the right to join a union in the employment rights information that is already being provided to permit holders. I will instruct my officials to work with Senator Black on that.
I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 16, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:“(d)who is an applicant or a recipient within the meaning of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 230 of 2018),”
This amendment adjusts section 8 regarding the non-application of section 7 to certain foreign nationals. Its purpose is to ensure that applicants or those who have been granted status within the meaning of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018 can directly access the labour market without a requirement to hold an employment permit in the State. In effect, this amendment excludes international protection applicants from the employment permits legislation while they are under the international protection process within the Department of Justice.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 16, line 25, to delete “in the State pursuant to the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967” and substitute the following:
“entitled in the State to privileges and immunities under section 5 or 6 of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967, or under any other Act of the Oireachtas or any instrument made thereunder,”.
Amendment No. 9 also adjusts section 8. It is again on the non-application of section 7 to certain foreign nationals by amending subsection (1)(f) to ensure that family members of officials of international organisations, assigned to work in the State under the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act are exempt from the requirements of the employment permits legislation. This amendment ensures that these family members are considered similar to the family members of diplomats assigned here from other countries. In addition to the privileges and immunities conferred on members of the diplomatic and consular missions, the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act confers certain privileges and immunities on international organisations, including the United Nations and the OECD.
Amendment agreed to.
Before we move on, I want to take this opportunity to welcome the second group of students and staff from the Central Technical Institute in Clonmel who are guests of Deputy Michael Lowry. I also want to acknowledge Senator Garret Ahearn who is working hard on their behalf today.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 16, line 28, to delete “a reciprocal” and substitute “an”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 16, line 33, to delete “that the assigned person” and substitute “the assigned person concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 17, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following:
“ “arrangement” means—
(a) in relation to an assigned person to whom paragraph (a) of the definition of assigned person applies, a reciprocal arrangement (whether in the form of a memorandum of understanding or otherwise) or reciprocal agreement that is entered into by the Government with another state, or
(b) in relation to an assigned person to whom paragraph (b) of the definition of assigned person applies, an arrangement (whether in the form of a memorandum of understanding or otherwise) or agreement that is entered into by the Government with an international organisation, community or body;
“assigned person” means—
(a) a person who is assigned, by a government of another state, to carry out official duty in the State on behalf of the government of that other state, or
(b) a person who is assigned, by an international organisation, community or body, to carry out official duty in the State on behalf of that international organisation, community or body.".
This is a technical amendment to adjust the meaning of section 8 (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 21, line 33, to delete “and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 12 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 30, line 18, to delete “section 31” and substitute “sections 27, 29 and 31”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 30, line 23, to delete “subject to sections 27 and 29,”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 32, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(4) An employment permit shall include contact details for the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Workplace Relations Commission.”.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This amendment, while technical, is straightforward. It does not change a lot in the grand scheme of things but it could have a huge impact on the people affected by it. The amendment seeks to facilitate the inclusion on employment permits of the contact details of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and the WRC. These are places to which workers, particularly vulnerable and migrant workers and the kinds of workers we are specifically talking about this evening, can go to get assistance in vindicating their rights at work. We have all discussed the need to protect workers and this amendment is nothing less than a practical step that could be taken to facilitate those workers in vindicating their rights at work. It is, and remains, the best protection at work to be a member of a trade union. We would like that benefit extended to those who may not have grown up knowing about the Irish trade union movement or indeed, where to go. I hope the Minister of State can accept this amendment. In the Dáil it was said that this could be done by way of statutory instrument but I hope the Minister of Sate can accept this amendment today.
I thank the Senator. I understand that this issue was raised on Report Stage in the Dáil. Officials have noted that the intention of the amendment, which is to insert the contact details of both ICTU and the WRC on the permit, is already provided for in the regulation-making powers of the Bill and, therefore, the amendment would duplicate the role of regulation-making powers available under section 21(2)(g). The Minister already has the power to carry out this action through regulations and can specify the information to be included on a permit. Indeed, it is currently the case that every new permit issued is accompanied by a document that provides a summary of the principal employment rights of employees. This document clarifies that foreign nationals legally working in the State are entitled to the full benefit of Irish employment rights legislation. It provides information on the role of the WRC already.
As mentioned earlier, I will instruct my officials to explore the option to also include a reference to the right to join a trade union in that documentation. I am happy to engage with the Senator and other relevant parties to discuss operationalising this particular proposal as part of the commencement regulations associated with this Bill but as this is not a matter for primary legislation, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I thank the Minister of State for her very genuine response. It is really important that people know, particularly if they are new to Ireland, about the support available from trade unions. Contact details for unions that can help and support them should be included as part of the work permit. I would prefer for this to be in primary legislation so I will agree to disagree with the Minister of State on that point. That said, I appreciate where she is coming from.
I appreciate where the Senator is coming from but our legal advice is that this is not a matter for primary legislation. I am happy to engage with him, outside of the legislative process, to see how we can make this happen at a practical level. This is not a matter for legislation so I will not accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23
Question proposed: “That section 23 stand part of the Bill.”
An issue has arisen but I have not had an opportunity to table an amendment on it yet. It relates to the establishment of the need to grant certain employment permits and how that might be advertised or how an individual or company would make people aware of that. The Bill refers to the notice being published on "one or more online platforms". I have a concern because there is such a proliferation of platforms and the legislation is not specific in ensuring that the notice is published on a mainstream platform. We all know, from an Internet perspective, of the multiplicity of sites. I ask that the Department would consider, either through an amendment on Report Stage, if possible, or through regulation, the inclusion of platforms owned by a national news publisher. The principle here is about, first, establishing whether there is somebody within the State who has an entitlement to work here and if so, then he or she has first dibs on a job. The permit is only issued in the event that there is nobody available within Ireland or the EEA or among those who have a right to live here. I am not being in any way nationalistic about this but it is important that we protect the essence of what we are trying to achieve, which is to give somebody an opportunity in the State to apply for a job, if such exists. I am not convinced by the language used in this section. Maybe there is something elsewhere in the Bill that broadens this but I am not convinced that it is strong enough to ensure there is an obligation on the person offering a job to advertise it to the greatest extent possible so that it is seen by all those who are eligible within our jurisdiction, such that there may not be a requirement to issue a permit at all.
We need to ensure that a national news publisher is included in some shape or form here. Secondary to that, it would be a way of supporting our public service journalism, although that is not the primary objective of my comments. I am principally concerned to ensure that the public at large knows that a job is available. We have all heard of unscrupulous employers who are trying to find cheap labour elsewhere. There are certain barriers and restrictions surrounding the issuance of a permit that eliminate that to some degree but we know there are some who would be happy to get a work permit and bring somebody in from outside. There is an obligation to try domestically first and that is why the notice has to be published in the first instance.
It used to be that people had to advertise in a national newspaper for, say, three days and document all of that. It is my reading of the Bill that this is watered down here. If this cannot be done by way of amendment, I ask the Minister of State to look at some other way, such as the making of a regulation at the end of the passage of the legislation. I know the Bill provides for secondary legislation and perhaps it can be stitched in there. Any clarification that the Minister of State can provide would be welcome.
This is important legislation and progressing it through the House has to be a priority. Slightly off the topic, I want to ask the Minister of State's view of the process of how applications are made. People pay an application fee but if the country the applicant is coming from is ruled out, the ability of the applicant to get a refund on the application becomes a problem. I know of a situation where an entity in my part of the world made an application for 20 work permits. The country the people were coming from was allowed when the entity made the application but while it was going through the process, that country was effectively ruled out and the entity was denied the right to get its money back. It was a significant sum for a small business in west Cork, which had paid €1,000 per applicant or a total of €20,000. If not in the legislation, then as a ministerial order, the Minister of State might consider allowing a refund where the status of the country the applicants are coming from changes during the process, that is, where a country that is allowed becomes a country that is not allowed. In this situation, it was not allowed, and the knock-on implication is that this small company lost the application fee, which was significant for it. I do not want to put the Minister of State on the spot but I ask her to come back to us on that issue.
If the Senator sends me details of that particular case, I will look into it for him.
On the issue raised by Senator Dooley, as he said, this can be dealt with by regulation. It is something that we can examine for him. We want to make sure we have an efficient and fair system but, ultimately, this always comes down to the guardrails, and the guardrails are that 50:50 rule, which is that there is always a preference for domestic and EEA workers. That is always going to be central to our policy.
With regard to permits that were granted and issued, that work is carried out by my Department. I am happy to engage with both Senators on this going forward.
I thank the Minister of State. While I understand the 50:50 rule, the reality is that citizens need to be made aware of this if we are to lift any burden from the employer. We all know how employers work. They are good people and I would not want to cast any aspersions. However, while the guardrail protects the 50:50 rule, there are many new citizens coming to live and work here, and simply ensuring that citizens of the State have the information on a digital platform is not robust enough. This can be done by way of amendment, although I know that given the process of legislation, it would be difficult to do it at this late stage if we want to get the Bill passed. Nonetheless, I ask the Minister of State to try to stitch it in.
In the past we had unemployment figures that were pretty high, yet employers still wanted to bring in people on work permits. That is their right and they are entitled to do that. However, if those who have a right to work are living in the State - whether they were citizens originally is not the point - they need to know about this. It is incumbent on us, in this instance, not to in any way weaken that particular stipulation. It is not going to change anything. It is just going to be a further belt and brace to ensure that - I should not use the word “citizens” - those who are living here and have an entitlement to work here have access to that information. By the way, that includes many migrant people who have come here and now have an entitlement to work after six months. It is important that they would have access to that information, as well as our regular people who are at work.
The Government needs to stitch that into a national publisher that has a domestic footprint, of which we have many and it does not have to be one in particular. Just leaving it as “online platform” leaves it open to that being a small, poorly circulated and poorly read platform. We can say that we have ticked the box and away we go, but that is not necessarily good policy. I am sure it is something that has been overlooked at a time we are trying to get more people in. Many of the employers in my constituency are struggling to find employees, so it is the right thing to do and we do not want to do anything that would impede that.
Like the Cathaoirleach, I have been around long enough to know that this boom is not going to continue. There will be a dip at some point when, from an employment perspective, we will be trying to protect those who live here and have an entitlement to work here. It would be foolhardy not to include something like that right now.
The Senator is correct that many companies, including those in his constituency, are struggling to find employees at the moment. That is why it is so important that we make sure we have a system that is fair, quick and easily accessible to both employers and people seeking work. Thankfully, we have a very good situation in Ireland where, at the moment, we have almost full employment. The Senator is also correct that this is not something the Government can take for granted. Ultimately, it is only down to prudent management of Exchequer funds that this can continue. It is obviously something we only have in our gift until the next election and after that, it is the mandate of the people to decide what happens and who is in charge of our economy going forward.
For that reason, we are working to modernise the system. Part of that is appreciating that employment opportunities nowadays are often advertised online, which is probably the easiest way for many people to access employment opportunities. That is why it is very important that we look to online as we seek to modernise the system, although the Senator is right that the national press has a key role to play. We will deal with this in the regulations. I appreciate his feedback. Baked into this legislation is the ability to improve the agility of the system by moving operational details to regulation, which is for easy modification as the circumstances require it. He has outlined the changing circumstances and, for example, moving the detailed requirement of the labour market needs test to regulations is something we are looking at. This can be dealt with in regulation. I will engage with him on it.
For clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that it needs to appear in national newsprint but on a national publisher’s digital platform. Many of our national publishers are migrating their activities online and I consume most of my national news from the national digital platforms of the main publishers. As for the speed and agility with which we need to move, I totally get the need to move to the Internet environment. I am not suggesting it has to appear on page 4 of The Irish Times, the Irish Independent or the Clare Champion, but that it is on a digital platform that is linked to, or owned by, a national publisher. People read the Irish Independent, The Irish Times and the Irish Examiner every day. By ensuring it is published in a national publication, albeit online, we protect the issue that I have raised in terms of ensuring it gets to the widest audience possible. It also achieves the Minister of State’s objective, which is the objective of many of the people I represent, in particular business owners, so they can deal with it quickly. As well as putting it on four or five other platforms, if that is what they wish, I ask that we include that one of those platforms must be a national publisher’s digital platform, or words to that effect. If the Minister of State's assurance to me is that she will engage with me or perhaps with one of the organisations that handles this in terms of advertisement and that it can be done through regulation, I will be very happy and I will welcome that.
It absolutely can be done through regulation, although we have not decided whether it will be. I am happy to take further correspondence on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 48, lines 25 and 26, to delete “ by a public health facility”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 48, line 27, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 48, line 35, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 48, line 36, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 49, line 1, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 49, line 3, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 49, line 5, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 49, line 9, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 49, lines 21 and 22, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 49, to delete lines 24 to 26.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 49, after line 37, to insert the following:
“(ii) in the 2 years preceding the day on which the application was made the person or employer who has made the offer of employment has been convicted of breaching employment legislation pertaining to any of the following:
(I) employment permits;
(II) national minimum wage;
(III) organisation of working time;
(IV) paternity leave and benefit;
(V) payment of wages;
(VI) protection of young persons;
(VII) sick leave;
(VIII) workplace relations;
(IX) terms of employment,”.
This amendment proposes to exclude employers who have been convicted of breaking employment law from applying again for an employment permit for a period of two years following that conviction. We all know and hear about the most egregious instances of unfair dismissals and breaches of employment law. Many of these make the front pages of the newspapers and go all the way to court. However, there are equally egregious cases of breaches found by WRC inspectors every day that never make the news and we may never hear about them. Those convictions for breaching employment law should not be without due sanction. This amendment is designed to ensure an employment permit cannot be issued to an employer or a person who has been convicted of breaking equality and employment-related legislation in the two years preceding the day on which the permit application was made.
Again, we are discussing at length workers who are vulnerable. If we are genuine about wanting to protect them, there should be a real deterrent for employers who are convicted of breaking employment legislation and equality legislation. We have talked at length about the good work the WRC does. It has recovered more than €22 million in stolen wages since 2001 and €1.9 million last year alone. While no one is suggesting that all employers are dying to get these permits to exploit workers, we need to put in place as many safeguards as we possibly can. I hope the Minister of State will consider this amendment.
I will open by giving my absolute assurance that we are genuine about wanting to protect vulnerable workers. The amendment the Senator tabled would add a new provision to the Bill that would effectively blacklist employers convicted of a wide range of employment rights breaches. This would represent a major change to the labour market enforcement system as it applies to the third country nationals employed under an employment permit.
While I fully appreciate the sentiment underpinning it, I will be refusing this amendment on a number of grounds. First, the amendment lists a number of breaches of employment rights legislation that go far beyond the scope of this Bill and the employment permits system. It would require extensive analysis and consultation to assess whether it would be appropriate or indeed legally permissible to broaden the scope of the Bill in this way. This work would take a considerable amount of time and would severely delay the passage of the Bill that has already been delayed for well over a year.
Furthermore, accepting this amendment could unintentionally create a parallel system of employment law dependent on whether an employer has hired Irish or non-EEA employees. I also note the risk of promoting undocumented labour, which could be another unintended consequence. That would be an outcome that would place the worker in a situation outside of the protections and regulations of this law, and this should be avoided.
It should be noted that as Minister of State, I have the power to refuse to process an employment permit application where the applicant has been convicted under employment permits legislation. This is done through section 33(1)(c) and section 41(1)(b), which provides a discretionary option to refuse an employment permit application where either party has been convicted of an offence or to allow for the revocation of a permit for the same reason.
I am confident that employment permit holders are protected in the same way as Irish workers by virtue of existing employment and equality legislation and through the penalties contained therein. Therefore, I will not accept this amendment.
The employers who break employment law are putting all other employers at a competitive disadvantage. We think there should be a sanction for those employers convicted of breaking the law of the State and who have treated their workers disgracefully. The Minister of State said we want to blacklist them. For two years, they should have no access to hiring vulnerable workers.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 32 agreed to.
Sections 33 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39
Amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, and 32 to 34, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The amendments in this group are technical amendments, including textual changes and changes to cross-referencing.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 61, line 13, after “applicable,” to insert “a person referred to in section 31(1)(c), or”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 61, line 22, after “permit” to insert “or, as the case may be, the remuneration stated in the notification referred to in section 31(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 61, line 24, after “permit” to insert “or, as the case may be, the deductions stated in the notification referred to in section 31(2),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 62, after line 40, to insert the following:
“Changing employer
40. (1) An employee that has been granted an employment permit shall be permitted to change employer—
(a) after an initial period of 12 months has elapsed since the employee concerned first commenced employment in the State pursuant to an employment permit granted to him or her, or
(b) in instances where it has been demonstrated that the employee has suffered exploitation, or any other unforeseen circumstances as determined by the Minister in regulation.
(2) An employee shall be required to notify the Minister of the change of employer through a notification procedure as determined by the Minister in regulation and shall not be required to complete a new employment permit application.”.
This amendment relates to the lack of support and flexibility for workers to change employer without applying for a new employment permit. In our view, it is a failing in the current system and this amendment seeks to change it. It would allow workers to change employer via a simple notification procedure while remaining under their existing permits under the current system.
The only way to change employer is to have a whole new application for a new employment permit. I note this costs in the region of €1,000, so it is prohibitive. It also involves a labour market needs test for the position and a long waiting time, among other things. This proposed change removes the obligation for a new application and makes it a realistic option for everyone, without fundamentally changing the system.
The Migrant Rights Centre stated that such a change would give workers increased mobility, which would protect them from exploitation while also improving pay and conditions for all workers in the sector, thus preventing a race to the bottom and, it has to be said, rewarding good employers. I hope the Minister of State will consider this amendment.
I thank the Senator for this amendment. I fully agree with his intentions here, and this amendment aligns with Government position with regard to changing employer through a parallel process that is not a new employment permit application. The amendment requires a 12-month period for which a permit holder will be linked to an employer and we have actually gone further than that in this legislation. This legislation provides for the employee to be able to change employer within a prescribed period, and our intention is that is nine rather than 12 months. The amendment also seeks to introduce a route to change employer where exploitation or other circumstances has forced a permit holder to seek alternative employment. Again, the employment permits system provides for this.
I firmly believe that the Bill achieves the intent of exactly what the Senator outlined. I do not believe there is a need to accept this amendment because we have gone further than it in one instance and have it covered in the second.
Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 40
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 64, line 20, after “applicable,” to insert “a person referred to in”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 64, line 35, after “permit” to insert “or, as the case may be, the remuneration stated in the notification referred to in section 31(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 64, line 37, after “permit” to insert “or, as the case may be, the deductions stated in the notification referred to in section 31(2)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 67, line 35, to delete “by a public health facility” and substitute “as a non-consultant hospital doctor”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 67, line 37, to delete “public health facility” and substitute “person”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 67, line 38, after “national” to insert “as a non-consultant hospital doctor”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 44 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 50
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 87, line 40, to delete “section 30(4))” and substitute “section 30(4)),”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 89, line 15, to delete “27(15) or 29(14)” and substitute “27(15), 29(14) or 31(4)(c)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 51 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 60
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Section 60 agreed to.
Sections 61 to 78, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 to agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday, 28 May 2024.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28 May 2024.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 1.46 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 3.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.46 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.