Vol. 573 No. 2
12 Mr. Sherlock asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the progress made to date with regard to the complaint submitted on 20 August 2003 to the labour inspectorate in respect of a company (details supplied), three of whose employees were awarded damages of ?50,000 in the High Court on 29 October 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24496/03]
The Deputy should note that, as the High Court award in this case arose from a civil action by way of a plenary summons, the labour inspectorate of my Department has no role in pursuing this particular aspect of the matter. Labour inspectorate investigations into the employment rights aspect of this case are concluded and the case is now with my Department's legal advisers.
The Minister's reply is identical to the one provided on 1 July in answer to a similar question. At issue is the exploitation of Brazilian workers who were brought to this country. I do not expect the Minister to deal with the High Court aspect of the case, but I expect her to move forward on the assertion she made on 1 July that the legal advisers of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment were informing her of the appropriate next step. Months have passed.
The people to whom I refer are the most vulnerable group of people imaginable. They were brought here with the prospect of reasonable employment and wages. Brazilians who were employed as cleaners under work permit were completely abused and exploited in, according to the High Court, a quite despicable fashion. I expected that by now the Minister would have reached out to these vulnerable people instead of repeating verbatim a reply she gave months ago to people whose circumstances have not improved one jot since.
I do not wish to talk about the specific cases involving these individuals as three of them have left the country and issues arose regarding information that was forthcoming from others. I will refer to the general position.
There are a considerable number of foreign workers in our economy, perhaps as many as 100,000. The general view is that while 45,000 are here on work permits, an equal number are here from other EU member states. The number of complaints received is very low in comparison to the numbers involved, but the law is applied with vigour and determination where we can find people who are willing to stand up. It is not always easy to do that. I accept that these individuals are very vulnerable which is why we have gone out of our way to provide resources to the voluntary groups that help foreign workers. We have also translated much of the information available on employment rights legislation into the major foreign languages to make individuals aware of their rights. In advance of issuing a work permit, details of rights available under Irish law are sent to the potential recipients. They confirm that they have read and understood them.
We should not exaggerate abuse, which happens on few occasions. While it should not happen, where it is brought to the attention of the inspectors in my Department, it is pursued with greater vigour than might be the case in respect of an Irish person. This is because I realise that people in this situation are extremely vulnerable and can be exploited. A permit is not given again in respect of persons who have mistreated workers. This is an effective deterrent and the law will be applied.
I am sorry if this is the same answer that was given before. I am not running away from my responsibility. I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who is more au fait with the matter than I am. In all cases, complaints are pursued with great vigour by my Department. Sometimes, unfortunately, complaints are not brought to our attention and we have to read about them in the newspapers. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for the Department to be proactive.
I hope the Minister was not suggesting that I tried to overstate the matter. I am concerned about this particular case. It is important in this new era, in which we are accepting non-nationals to work, to welcome them into our community. Where such obviously despicable treatment as outlined in the High Court case occurs, we must be strongly proactive. It was not good enough for the Minister to inform the House on 1 July that the labour inspectorate investigations into the employment rights aspect of this case were concluded and that her Department was preparing the matter for transmission to its legal advisers who will advise on the next appropriate step, only to supply the same answer again in October. That does not indicate that this case is being taken as seriously as it merits.
There are legal issues involved in this case and they are the reason for the delay. I wish to move away from the case, therefore, to the general issue raised by the Deputy. I assure him that my officials, the Minister of State and I take these complaints extremely seriously. Many of our own citizens have worked abroad and some, unfortunately, have been exploited. We define ourselves as a society in terms of how we treat the most vulnerable, particularly those that come here to work. The Deputy should be assured that no resources will be spared in the enforcement of the law in relation to these matters.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
