Mr. Eamon Ryan:
Like Deputy Broughan, I generally welcome this Bill and its main provisions.? Reading the Bill, it is interesting to reflect on how much has changed in a year.? About a year ago our official position was that we were very much in favour of workers from the accession countries having open access to this country.? I regret very much that during the Nice referendum campaign, that changed somewhat due to some of the poor and disreputable arguments used by the anti-treaty side.? The T?naiste seemed pressurised to include a clause where we would not be accepting of or open to the accession countries and I regretted that.? I welcome that it has been somewhat opened again athough the inclusion of the caveat that it depends on our economic conditions, which I understand from our economic point of view, will be read by the accession countries as not necessarily a full and free welcome to them into the Union.? That is regrettable.? I very much welcome the ten countries into the Union and I welcome their workers into this country.? We entered into a common market and a common Union in other ways as well where we provide each other’s citizens with similar rights.? While I understand our economic interest in possibly including a caveat, does it take some of the welcome away from those accession countries?? Are we, to a certain extent, having our cake and eating it?
I understand the economic arguments for including a caveat because I have profound fears about the employment prospects for this country in future years.? I fear the very dramatic increase in redundancies, which we have seen in the past two years, is likely to increase.? I fear those jobs will not be replaced by the new jobs we were lucky to get in recent years.? I fear we are facing a period of serious job losses and that we will have to use the caveat included the Bill.
I have a slight fear that the 40,000 immigrant workers who came here in one year have, in a way, created a dangerous environment for Irish workers.? I do not wish to turn away migrant workers but the problem facing our economy is that it is a high cost economy.? By using large numbers of migrant workers, are we putting off the inevitable day when that high cost economy comes home to roost in terms of job losses?? If at that stage we have to place restrictions on immigrant workers coming in, we will be left with the worst of both worlds.? We will have an economy which will find it difficult to shift to become more competitive and we will not be able to take in migrant workers for, understandably, political reasons.? We are facing very perilous times in that regard.
I am concerned that legislation in this area is geared too much towards the needs of employers and not necessarily the needs of the employee, whether Irish or migrant.? To take up the point made by Deputy Broughan, the permits should be issued to the employees.? The current and the proposed situation where the employer holds the permit gives undue power or influence to the employer.? It is important for reasons of negotiation and workers’ rights that the employee is the permit holder.
I regret very much that the main employment permit Bill, which is due after Easter, could not be introduced at the same time as this Bill.? It would have made a considerable amount of sense when legislating for employment permits, to outline their nature.? I find it hard to understand why the Department, which had a year to prepare the broader employment permits Bill, could not have brought it in with this Bill.? It has been six months since the Nice referendum, so there has been a period of time within which it could have been done.? I will be interested to hear why that was not possible or whether there is a particular reason.? I am disappointed the two Bills were not brought in together for the efficiency of this House and for better debate on both Bills.
In general, I do not have a problem with the provisions of this Bill.? Some of the points Deputy Broughan made about bringing the agencies under control, giving the permit to the employee and giving employees and migrant workers access to the labour relations and employment appeals systems may well be contained in the forthcoming Bill but I would have preferred it if both Bills had been introduced at the same time so we could have had a proper debate.? We would have been able to see the system we are setting up.
If we face a difficult employment situation and have to restrict access to the accession countries, will Irish workers be restricted in terms of their working rights to travel to Poland, Hungary or the other accession states?? What will characterise our employment patterns over the next five to ten years will be a significant movement of employment to those countries which have a well educated workforce, like ourselves, better infrastructure, much lower access costs, because of their location, and which have lower communications, transport and other costs.? In the next few years, we will see Irish and multinational employers moving their manufacturing and labour-orientated bases to those countries.? In many cases, Irish employers will look for work permits for their businesses in Hungary, Poland and in other countries.? That is something we cannot stop if we are part of this broader common market.? That is the way things will go.? Will we see a strange turnaround where we are looking for permits from those states?
The world has changed hugely in the past year.? We face precarious and difficult times.? The European Union has been riven.? Prior to the Gulf War, no one could have predicted the breakdown in the concept of or confidence in where Europe was going.? In those circumstances, it is hard to know what the real effect of this Bill or what the migration patterns will be.? I welcome the Bill.
