Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have tabled amendment No. 2. I welcome the Minister to the House. I thank the Minister and his officials most particularly for the detailed response to a series of questions I outlined in respect of the Bill. It is appreciated and it really helps our engagement in this process.

This is the main issue I have with the Bill. I tabled the amendment to better ensure that the lacuna in the law relating to section 2 of the Employment Permits Act 2003 identified by Mr. Justice Hogan in the Mohammed Younis case is closed off and that exploitative work practices are recognised as a cause of action for judicial redress. The Minister will remember that when the Younis case came before the High Court, Mr. Justice Hogan was forced to overturn the determination of the Labour Court to award over €90,000 to Pakistani restaurant worker Mohammed Younis for alleged breaches of his employment rights, including threats, payments well below the minimum wage, and the imposition of extremely long working hours - around 77 hours per week - with insufficient breaks and no day off, as well as the failure to renew Mr. Younis's work permit, thus rendering him undocumented in the State and altogether vulnerable to the exploitation and mistreatment meted out to him. It was the correct decision in law but it was not just or right. Mr. Justice Hogan clearly recognised this and, in overturning the Labour Court award, he stated that Mr. Younis had been "the victim of the most appalling exploitation in respect of which he has no effective remedy". Furthermore, Mr. Justice Hogan felt compelled to send a copy of his decision to the Minister, the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach.

I commend the efforts the Minister has made in the Bill to deal with the legislative gap identified by the Younis case and I believe the Minister has done an excellent job in this regard. However, there is scope for strengthening the protection we afford to vulnerable migrant workers. In the Minister's written response to me on this issue he said that the inclusion of the explicit link between exploitative work practices and access to the compensation provision, as in my amendment, could actually raise the bar with regard to the evidence an applicant would have to submit to a court in order to satisfy the provision. I do not see that this is the case. My amendment offers a new and distinct defence on the basis of exploitative work practices. It is clear from the drafting that it is a separate cause of action and not an additional proof. It is designed to expand the rights of migrants to take a claim to the civil courts on the grounds of exploitation.

It is vital that exploitative work practices are articulated in this section to give courage to the scores of workers with work permits in precarious situations who are being subjected to exploitation as we speak at the hands of unscrupulous employers and to serve as a deterrent to employers in such cases.