Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with the opportunity to take civil proceedings for a person to be compensated where an illegal contract was in place.

The effect of Deputy Tóibín's amendment No. 13 would be to make this into a route through which one would get an employment permit. There are existing rules that are the basis on which a person can apply for an employment permit. We are not willing to make an illegal contract the basis for access to a permit. The criteria for a permit are clear and they are related to the needs of the labour market, the pressure of unemployment, skills or whatever. We must see that there is a justifiable case. What we are providing here is not to turn what was an illegal contract into a route to an employment permit but to protect the person who was a victim of such a situation and give him or her redress.

In terms of the ability to support oneself, the Department of Social Protection has exceptional needs payments which may be available to such a person if he or she launched civil proceedings. It is not intended that this would become a new route for getting permits.

On the amendment in respect of the appropriate payment, we are providing here for compensation based on the national minimum wage. One must bear in mind that we are dealing with illegal contracts and the only unambiguous standard is the national minimum wage because that is a mandatory rate of pay for the job that ought to be applied. These are rates provided for in law. There is no ambiguity or standards of proof for a court in determining how much compensation would have to be paid. This is clear-cut. It also provides that, in being able to go back in time in terms of before the Act was in place, one is not introducing an element of penalty by setting a higher wage. One is avoiding providing any penal element. One is simply saying that there was an obligation that was not met. Not only would the amendment add complexity and ambiguity, it would put the matter at some risk.

We consulted with the Courts Service on the Deputy's Amendment No. 23. It has indicated that in the cases provided for by this section, the only relevant interim relief would involve applying for an order preventing the employer dissipating or reducing his or her assets which might be required to meet the claim if the plaintiff were successful. Such relief would already be available by way of injunction in the High Court or Circuit Court.

If, by this amendment, the Deputy is proposing that the plaintiff could apply for an advance of money that he or she might get in a settlement or court determination, the Courts Service has indicated that it is unaware of such relief being available where there is a dispute and it points to the danger that to allow relief such as proposed would pre-empt the outcome of the proceedings where the case remains to be determined.

See this speech in context