Paul Murphy: Exposing Exploitation of Undocumented Fishers

Thanks a lot, Chair. First of all, thanks a lot to the WRC and to Mr O'Brien and the ITF. Just to refer to the minute study yesterday and thank the researchers for doing it. The headline findings were over two-thirds of the participants observed that they could work between 15 and 20 hours a day. One-third of participants reported feeling safe on the vessel, so two-thirds not feeling safe, and over half of the participants have been subjected to racial and verbal abuse. And in relation to the point that Senator Crowe made, it says all but two of the interviewees who had been in Ireland since before 2016 indicated that conditions in the sector had worsened overall since that time. And we can't say that this is the first time that we're hearing about the horrific conditions that exist for undocumented migrant fishers in Ireland, and I think there has been a real criminal failure by the state to stand up for these workers' rights. Just, first of all, to Mr O'Brien, if I get a sense of how widespread this problem is, how many undocumented fishers do you estimate that there are working in this sector in Ireland? Mr O'Brien, in terms of the undocumented, I would have liked to be able to say that the current labour force survey that Board of East of Wales is conducting would give us that answer, but unfortunately the way they've gone about that survey means that not only will they not reveal how many undocumented fishers are in the fleet, but we'll get wrong information down the road. And I have engaged Board of East of Wales about this. Basically, they're carrying out an online survey in the English language, and they're depending mostly upon the vessel owners to disclose the composition of their crew. So you can guess that skippers and vessel owners that are employing undocumented migrants are not going to disclose that in the survey. I am told that it's open for crew to participate in the survey, but I've made the points already about the language barriers, but also even basic things like internet access and so on, that it's extremely difficult, and I've put it up to them that if they are going to conduct a similar labour survey again, that they would engage with us, that we could actually assist in promoting the survey amongst the various groups. We have our own WhatsApp groups with the various language-based communities within the sector. In terms of our best guess, when the scheme was conceived, the atypical scheme, the interdepartmental group that had proposed the scheme, their best estimate was 500 migrant fishers in the Irish fishing fleet five years ago. The then Minister for Agriculture, Coveney, announced that he would set a cap at 500. The immediate response of the Veselona representative associations was actually, can you make it a thousand? So that gives you some idea. But once the deadline for enrolment in the scheme in mid-2016, that was the amnesty phase of the scheme, to regularise the pre-existing migrants here, unfortunately the media furore and attention died down and we got about 250 people enrolled, and obviously there has been a churn in the subsequent five years, but the last time a PQ was submitted around, the figure was around 230 registered in the atypical scheme, spanning 180 vessels, but also we were told in a PQ response that 45% of the eligible vessels don't employ anybody under the atypical scheme. So you have to do the maths here, like it's like a leaving cert maths problem, like how many, how are these vessels being crewed, how are the 180 largest vessels in the fleet being crewed, if you have 230 atypical workers? Yes, they each would most likely have an Irish skipper, there are one or two Egyptian skippers who have obtained Irish citizenship, but they're very much the exception. There are some European Union based share fishers, like from Poland or Latvia, there are some non-European migrants who have obtained the stamp forward for various reasons. Again, there is spimeric, but it doesn't add up. So hundreds, I would say, is the best answer I can give. Mr O'Brien has set out a number of very clear legislative and kind of practice deficiencies that have resulted in significant failures for the undocumented fishers. So if I could just put them particularly to you, I mean, in relation firstly to the cognisable period, your response, I think, to Deputy Brewton was to say, well, in exceptional circumstances, it can be 12 months, etc., etc., but even allowing for that, do you accept that that is a problem, that whereby that may work for, you know, regularised workers, that in a situation like the example was given of the worker working for four years, an underpayment potentially of 114,000 euros, that in those circumstances, the maximum they'd get would be, say, a year would be close to 30,000 euros. They'd only get a quarter of what they would otherwise be owed. Do you accept that this is, does present a significant problem for undocumented workers? Thank you, Deputy. That's the legal framework within which we operate. And in terms of how it's set out, in terms of the cognisable period, and albeit with some variations allowed in particular cases. It's a matter, really, of policy, which I would be reluctant to comment. I think it is challenging for people, particularly in the fisheries industry, for some of the issues along the line that Mr. O'Brien has pointed out. But it's really, it's a matter of legislation, and we operate within the legislative framework as it's set out by the Oireachtas. The other question to you, which is the, the problem that undocumented fishers have in terms of vindicating their rights. So the fact that they don't have lawful employment, which means that complaints related to fundamental rights, such as the minimum wage, cannot be pursued by ITF on behalf of the undocumented worker. Do you agree that that presents a significant problem? And that then means that they're in effectively your hands, the WRC's hands, as to whether you decide to pursue a case. Mr. O'Brien has made the argument that it seems that you're operating on the basis of a very high burden of proof, probably beyond reasonable doubt, and he suggested that in seven years, you've taken at most one case in relation to these matters. Is that accurate? Do you accept that point? Mr. I accept the case that we've, that's the number of cases we've taken. Section 2B of the Employment Impairments Act is it's a matter for the WRC through the Minister or the individual to take the case. On the particular point in the bar that Michael mentioned, and I don't want to talk about the particular case. It's one case that was discussed with Michael at that meeting that I mentioned. There are issues with the particular case. In that instance, we felt that it didn't have a reasonable prospect of success. But I wouldn't take or extrapolate from that that we have a high bar. But how do you explain one case in seven years? I mean, we're hearing about how widespread in the industry the problems are that the workers don't have another recourse, and yet you've only taken one case in seven years. Well, primarily the matter referred to us in two ways, one by the individual or via the Minister, and they're the cases that have come to us. One was the case that we've mentioned and then it was the other one. In terms of the broader issue in terms of difficulties of people who are undocumented taking a case to the WRC, I think that that is a fact. And I know that there are there are some bills out there which we're looking at how that can move forward.