Employment Permits Bill - Second Stage - 24th May 2006

Employment Permits Bill - Second Stage - 24th May 2006

Mr. Norris: Unlike my colleagues I have not
received any prepared scripts, so I will have to do
a free-range job on this matter.
Mr. Coghlan: We will be all the better for that.
Mr. Martin: Free-range and organic.
Mr. Norris: I welcome most of the timely provisions
in the Bill. I have raised as a humanitarian
matter the plight of migrant workers. I remember
seeing two unfortunate young Turkish lads in
floods of tears on Butt Bridge. They had come to
Ireland on the understanding they had jobs and
work permits. When they arrived, they discovered
they were defrauded and viciously
exploited by Irish employers. Without enough
money to get home, they were forced to live on
credit and in hostels. The Minister will recall the
plight of some Polish workers in Donegal, who
were promised jobs by a local builder but who
left them high and dry. I am glad traditional Irish
hospitality came into play. The woman, in whose
guesthouse they were staying, went on the airwaves
outlining their cases and they managed to
get other jobs.
These types of situations have not really gone
away. I was horrified by the recent situation at
Holles Street Hospital where nurses from the
Philippines came to work on agreed contracts.
Those contracts were welshed on and their
employment conditions changed with a halving of
their income. Some were bullied into accepting
these changes. This is one of the principal medical
institutions in the State. I am glad the master of
the hospital has apologised for it.
I pay tribute to the work of Deputy Joe
Higgins. Without his incisive intervention in the
case of a group of Turkish workers in the construction
industry, we still would have a difficult
situation. Several of the issues clearly highlighted
in that case, the proper keeping of records and
the issuing of a work permit to the worker, are
addressed in the Bill. It used to be the case that
the employer had possession of the worker’s
work permit. The Bill provides for the employer
or the employee to apply for the permit. Will the
Minister explain why the employer should be
included in this process? The permit should be
the entitlement and the property of the individual
worker.
The State retains an interest in the work permit
and the right to have it returned. There is also
some degree of a fee to be paid for it. I presume
the \500 charge for the permit is cash up-front.
That is a large sum of money for those workers
coming from economically deprived areas, particularly
when they must make other financial
arrangements for accommodation and so forth. I
assume the fee applies to those on lower wages
who receive a work permit rather those on the
green card. That introduces a class system for
professionals such as doctors and those working
at the cutting edge of science.
We are happy to take them and place them at
an advantage because of our own requirements.
That is acting clearly out of self interest, which is
sometimes justifiable, but I am concerned about
the creation of a two-tier system and class structure
in what we are continually told is a classless
republic in which all children of the nation are
treated equally.
This is a new situation for people as long in the
tooth as me. I remember when unemployment
was the principal problem in this country. Senator
Leyden referred to our visit to Kenya, where he
visited many projects and I saw a few, and the
situation in Nairobi is one of 80% unemployment.
That was the level of unemployment in the
area of Dublin I moved into during the late 1970s.
It is horrifying but true that there was 85% unemployment
in the north inner city. That is largely
gone now and we are having difficulty filling jobs
in key economic sectors and are looking abroad
for workers.
This is an unusual situation that is positive in
some ways but that also contains dangers. If we
do not treat these people reasonably and
decently, they will treat us in the same mercenary
fashion we treat them and the minute they have
made enough loot to buy a kiosk wherever they
came from, they will leave and, very reasonably,
feel they have no obligation to us and no reason
to do other than leave us high and dry.
Once again there is a difference. The professional
people are given immediate opportunities
to reunite their families but those on the
lower economic scale are not. I do not like that.
I am an egalitarian and if we believe in the principle
of family unity it should not be related to
income unless there are good reasons. I cannot
imagine what those reasons are and I do not think
they can be simply economic because someone
on \30,000, with the supports we have in this
country, could afford to maintain a family.
Often in the case of nursing and medical staff,
the spouse is also engaged in this line of work and
could quite happily come here. I personally know
a number of Filipino nurses and they are
thoroughly disillusioned with this country. The
Minister is a former Minister for Health and Children
and will be aware of this fact. They have
given extraordinary service in the health area,
where the wages and conditions are not great,
and often they are not given the facility to reunite
with their families. This must be examined if we
want these people to make their talents available.
Mr. Martin: They have been allowed to reunite
for the past two years.
Mr. Norris: I am glad to hear that, perhaps my
information is out of date. I welcome that and I
am happy to be corrected.
Mr. Martin: Those on work visa applications,
including in the health, technology and construction
professional areas, form a separate category
from those on work permits. They are allowed to
bring their spouses to Ireland. The Bill also deals
with them.
Mr. Norris: That is the sort of information I
welcome because my information is anecdotal
and if the situation has improved, I welcome it.
Senator Leyden referred to the situation in
Kenya. It is a country that must be beautiful in
certain areas but the economic situation is horrendous.
Many people want to leave and do not
want to return. One of the problems arising from
this is sophisticated and complex. We are cherry
picking in areas such as health care, information
and communications technology, construction,
financial services, engineering and pharmaceutical
biotechnology, skills which are badly needed
in these poorer countries. We are impoverishing
these people by removing their skills from their
native environment. I acknowledge the difficulty
that if we do not take them, someone else will,
but it demonstrates the lack of balance. For that
reason, I hesitate about this discriminatory idea
of people earning over \60,000 enjoying immediate
family reunification provisions when lower
paid workers do not have the same access.
The Minister’s explanation of the Bill was useful
and I support much of it, such as the intercompany
transfer scheme that brings us into line
with the global economy. I do not see why the
employer should have any right to apply for the
employee’s work permit. If the employee is concerned
about it, he or she should be able to tell
the employer to apply for it. I like the idea that
the permit contains a statement of entitlements,
including remuneration, and acknowledges in
clear print a person’s right to change employer.
Often people felt as if they were bonded
labourers.
Could there be a provision to deal with driving?
A high proportion of accidents are caused
by migrant workers. There should be a booklet
made available to them containing the rules of
the road and advice about where to get driving
lessons. It might save some lives. I am not saying
migrant workers are worse drivers than us but
they are driving in unfamiliar circumstances.
Section 11 gives the Minister the right to vary
the conditions for the granting of work permits in
line with the economic policy of the Government
of the time. The terms of any regulations
enforced with regard to the granting of employment
permits give power to the Minister and I
hope these regulations will be put before the
Oireachtas for approval, otherwise I will table an
amendment. The ability to vary conditions and
requirements for work permits without recourse
to the Oireachtas grants a wide power to the
Minister.
There are some good sections in the Bill.
Section 26 prohibits an employer from penalising
an employee who makes complaints to gardaı´
about mistreatment under this Act. What a terrible
prospect. It is a reproach to us that we must
introduce this provision because employers did
penalise their workers for seeking to establish
their rights. I am glad the Government is
defending these rights.
The retention and making available of records
is welcome, as is the maintenance of a register of
employees. The scandals involving Turkish construction
companies where there were no records
or tax documents would not have been discovered
without Deputy Joe Higgins.
It is also welcome that there is provision for
the giving of evidence by live television link.
Sometimes workers who have been badly treated,
as we have seen historically, returned to their
home country and found it difficult to return
here, so this is useful. Permission is also granted
under Schedule 2 to an employee to complain to
a rights commissioner about breaches of this Act
and the 2003 Act, a provision that must be
welcomed.
In broad outline, I strongly support this Bill.
Members from all sides have called for it on
humanitarian terms. There is a balance in the Bill
between a recognition of certain humanitarian
elements and a strong element of self interest. It
is up to the Minister and his advisors to balance
these two elements and ensure that self interest
does not overburden the provisions that are
meant to take the welfare of the individual
worker into account.