Irregular migrants can fall victim to exploitative employers. The EU has rules to protect migrant workers in an irregular situation from exploitation and abuse, but gaps remain in their enforcement, finds a new report by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). Workers do not know their rights or how to complain, and even when they do, they may not receive compensation due. EU countries should do better to protect migrant workers’ rights under existing EU rules.

• DOWNLOAD REPORT ON EMPLOYERS SANCTIONS DIRECTIVE

“All workers have the right to seek and get justice from exploitative employers. Irregular migrants are no exception,” says FRA Director Michael O’Flaherty. “EU rules protect the rights of workers to get justice. EU countries need to step up their efforts to protect irregular migrants from labour exploitation, compensate victims and ensure employers pay all due wages, especially now during the pandemic.”

FRA’s latest report looks at how the Employers Sanctions Directive protects irregular migrants from exploitation. It focuses on how EU countries use the directive to enable exploited workers get justice. It identifies implementation gaps and suggests EU countries:

• Improve complaint systems: Exploited workers rarely use existing complaint systems. This is often out of fear of being detected, detained, and returned. Lack of information on their rights as workers and available complaint systems is another factor. Third parties, such as trade unions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can help. EU countries should enable these parties to support irregular migrant workers to claim their rights. No country centralises data on filed and successful complaints from irregular migrant workers about back payments of due wages. To assess the effectiveness of the complaint system, countries should collect relevant data. This includes complaints about back pay, awards, and the compensation irregular migrant workers received.
• Change laws and practices: Workplace inspections can play a key role in preventing and identifying labour exploitation. But labour inspectorates share irregular migrants’ personal data with police or immigration authorities in 20 out of 25 EU countries. This discourages workers from reporting abuse during inspections. Ending this requirement and focusing labour inspectorates on protecting workers and not enforcing immigration law will encourage victims of rights violations to come forward.
• Compensate exploited workers: Even when workers seek compensation from employers, practical difficulties exist. These range from the time and effort needed to take employers to court, and to receive compensation. Employers may declare themselves bankrupt. State compensation funds, when available, may not cover irregular migrant workers. To ensure victims of severe labour exploitation receive all back pay, criminal courts should also decide on civil law claims. EU countries should guarantee that all irregular migrant workers recover outstanding wages. This could be through access to state compensation or freezing and confiscating employers’ assets.
• Issue temporary residence permits to victims of severe labour exploitation: Countries vary in how they support victims of severe exploitation. Some offer temporary residence permits, others only do this for trafficked victims. One third of EU countries did not issue residence permits to victims of severe labour exploitation in the last years. Countries should make greater use of such permits.

• The EU Employers Sanctions Directive aims to stop employers from recruiting irregular migrants. It also protects irregular workers by ensuring that they get any outstanding pay from their employers, by facilitating complaints and by emphasising the right not to be subjected to particularly exploitative working conditions.

  The directive came into force in 2009. It applies to all EU countries, except Denmark and Ireland.

  The research drew on legal analysis, and information from national authorities, courts and irregular migrant and victims’ support organisations.

  For more contact: media@fra.europa.eu(link sends e-mail) / Tel.: +43 1 580 30 653

  .

The European Parliament has adopted, with the Council’s consent and the Commission’s positive opinion, improved rules governing the Ombudsman’s duties.

The new regulation, adopted by the European Parliament with 623 votes in favour, 9 against, and 61 abstentions, establishes a renewed mandate for the office of the European Ombudsman.

The new rules align the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties with the Treaty of Lisbon. The Ombudsman will be able to launch their own inquiries whenever they find grounds for one, and will be able to propose solutions to the issues an investigation raises, namely in cases of repeated, systemic or particularly serious instances of maladministration. The rules also clarify the conditions for access to documents and cooperation with member states' authorities and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. A new “cooling off” period is required for eligibility to the Office, and provisions for the protection of victims of harassment and whistle-blowers are now foreseen.

Quotes

Parliament’s negotiator and rapporteur Paulo Rangel (EPP, PT) commented: “Today we have put in place improved rules for an important office of the EU. Simply put, the Ombudsman can now serve Europeans even better than before. But we have also made institutional history: Parliament exercised its right of initiative and managed to have all institutions on board.”

On behalf of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council, Secretary of State for EU Affairs Ana Paula Zacarias said: “The European Ombudsman plays an important part in our EU institutional framework, notably to ensure the trust of our citizens by promoting good administration by our institutions. The new statute reflects the evolution of the institutional architecture of the European Union, is in line with the Treaty of Lisbon and allows the European Ombudsman to exercise their duties under a strong and clear mandate.”

European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, said: “I warmly welcome today’s revision of the statute, as it not only consolidates existing good practices, but also puts more emphasis on important issues, such as harassment, whistleblowing and conflicts of interest. I believe this will improve the Ombudsman’s work, which will ultimately benefit all Europeans, companies and associations. I would like to express my greatest appreciation for the excellent work and cooperation between colleagues in the European Parliament, Council and Commission.”

Next steps

The regulation will be signed by EP President Sassoli on Thursday 24 June, and enter into force on the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.

Background

The European Ombudsman aims to protect the interests of people and investigates cases where an EU institution or body has allegedly acted in violation of the law or good administration practices. Cases could concern administrative irregularities, discrimination, abuse of power, or failure to act.

Parliament has the exclusive right of initiative in this area, for which it needs the Council’s consent and the Commission’s opinion. The previous rules had stayed unaltered since before the Treaty of Lisbon, despite Parliament’s draft regulation put forward in 2019, due to political deadlock. On 10 May 2021, the informal dialogue with the Council resulted in a provisional set of rules, which was confirmed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 25 May, followed by the adoption of the updated negotiating mandate by Parliament on 10 June.

The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, Margaret Kelly, today recommended significant changes in how further evidence is used in assessing and awarding entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit for some of the most vulnerable in society.

The recommendations came following publication of an investigation report which found that repeated opportunities were missed to make the right payment as early as possible in the process. It found that a failure by both the Department for Communities and Capita to seek and use further evidence, including that from medical professionals, meant claimants had to continually challenge the decision, often all the way to Appeal, before the correct decision was made.

The repeated nature of the failures led the Ombudsman to conclude that it constituted ‘systemic maladministration’.

Ms Kelly said:
“Too many people have had their claims for PIP unfairly rejected, and then found themselves having to challenge that decision, often ‘in the dark’, and on multiple occasions, while not knowing what evidence has been requested and relied upon to assess their entitlement.

Both Capita and the Department need to shift their focus to ensure that they get more of the PIP benefit decisions right the first time, so that the most vulnerable people in our society get access to the support that they need, when they need it. Furthermore, it will safeguard public resources by reducing both the time and costs associated with examining the same claim on multiple occasions.”

Ms Kelly went on to say;
“My investigation highlights that the system for dealing with further evidence, a critical part of how decisions on PIP are made, is characterised by confusion. Claimants face huge uncertainty throughout the process over who is responsible for providing further evidence, what evidence has been obtained and whether or not it has actually been considered as part of the decision to award benefit. In my investigation in only 35 of the 100 claims reviewed had further evidence actually been requested. The Department’s own figures, gathered over a 9 month period, put this even lower at 25% of all cases”.

Overall the investigation found:
Of the 96 cases considered that were designated for a face to face assessment, in only 1 was further evidence requested after the initial review.

The most common reason for not requesting further evidence was that ‘it was unlikely evidence would be obtained within the timescale required’ – despite the fact that there were 6 weeks available within which to gain such evidence.

Face to face assessments of claimants was often the primary and in some cases the only source of evidence relied upon by Disability Assessors.

Capita used information on the number of assessment reports completed and submission times to decide on bonuses for Disability Assessors; these had the potential to inhibit the appropriate use of further evidence in making assessments.

In the high number of cases where claimants had their PIP decision overturned at the last stage of the Department’s internal process, the investigation found numerous examples of where the evidence relied upon at appeal was either already available to the Disability Assessor or the contact details of those who could provide it were already available.

Overall despite Capita and the Department’s contention that further evidence has a key role in the PIP process, it was often only at the last stage and following the submission of an appeal to the Tribunal that the role of further evidence was elevated.

Too many vulnerable claimants may not have been identified for additional support at the very start of the PIP process because of the Department’s narrow interpretation of its own guidance.

Many PIP claimants received correspondence from Capita that said all health professionals they had listed had been contacted, when in-fact this was not the case.

Opportunities for the Department and Capita to systematically improve the quality of assessments and decision making were lost due to an incomplete analysis of the reasons for the overturn of benefit decisions.

Ms Kelly concluded:
“I accept that the delivery of PIP is a huge task and that there has been significant work by the Department and Capita on implementing PIP in a timely manner but it is my view there is more work to be done to improve both the experience and outcomes for claimants and public confidence in the system.

I welcome that the Department will be taking forward the many recommendations I have made, which I hope will fundamentally improve the PIP decision-making process and have a positive impact for those most vulnerable claimants for whom the support of PIP is critical in their day to day lives. My team will be continuing to work with the Department to monitor and evaluate the implementation of our recommendations and I will report on them at a later date.

For the full report and a summary of the findings, click here.

Recomendación General 3/2021, del Ararteko
Vitoria-Gasteiz

Esta recomendación general del Ararteko tiene su origen en una actuación de oficio iniciada en 2019 con el objetivo de analizar y evaluar los procedimientos administrativos seguidos por las diputaciones forales de Álava, Bizkaia y Gipuzkoa, para la detección e investigación de las causas de los incendios forestales y para la determinación de su autoría en los tres territorios históricos.

El Ararteko inició esa actuación de oficio tras conocer, a través de los medios de comunicación y redes sociales, la preocupación social por la existencia de algunos incendios forestales de cierta entidad en el País Vasco, presumiblemente provocados, y las dificultades para esclarecer una autoría que permita exigir la correspondiente responsabilidad en cada caso.

Es cierto que la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco es una de las zonas del Estado con menor índice de superficie afectada por incendios forestales. Esto se debe a diversos factores como las condiciones climatológicas o las políticas forestales para la prevención y el desarrollo de una gestión forestal más sostenible puestas en práctica en las últimas décadas.

Sin embargo, esa mejor situación comparativa no resta el interés de promover la mayor reducción posible de este problema que, aunque en menor medida, persiste en la actualidad, fundamentalmente en determinadas épocas del año. Además, está la perspectiva de aumento del riesgo, ante una influencia potencial del cambio climático en la duración y la severidad de la temporada de incendios forestales.

En ese contexto, resulta imprescindible disponer de un análisis exhaustivo de las causas que provocan los incendios, con objeto de establecer acciones específicas para su control y, en aquellos incendios causados por las actividades humanas, para reprender a sus autores, si existe negligencia o intencionalidad.

El objetivo de esta recomendación es proponer un documento de bases que sirva para una posterior reflexión entre las instituciones competentes en la investigación y el ejercicio de la potestad sancionadora en los incendios forestales detectados en el País Vasco.

En concreto, el Ararteko recomienda una serie de medidas para mejorar la inspección y el control de los incendios forestales.

Entre esas propuestas se han incluido recomendaciones dirigidas a mejorar el acceso a la información ambiental sobre los incendios forestales, la promoción de la colaboración ciudadana y la protección del denunciante medioambiental, en el caso de los incendios forestales.

También realiza recomendaciones para mejorar el cumplimiento de la normativa de protección contra incendios, mediante el ejercicio de las potestades de inspección e investigación de las causas de los incendios forestales.

El Ararteko recuerda a las administraciones forales competentes la obligación de impulsar de oficio las medidas de inspección y diligencias de investigación de los incendios forestales, y que la guardería forestal encargada de la inspección de los incendios debe disponer de formación específica y de medios materiales suficientes.

En la recomendación general el Ararteko recoge, también, la obligación de las administraciones forales de ejercer las potestades sancionadoras, el resarcimiento de los daños ambientales causados por el incendio y la obligación de remitir al Ministerio Fiscal los expedientes de incendios forestales.

Además, el Ararteko destaca la importancia de impulsar los mecanismos de coordinación en la vigilancia ambiental de los incendios forestales.

A ese respecto el Ararteko reconoce la labor realizada hasta la fecha por la Fiscalía de Medio Ambiente en la prevención y control de los incendios forestales. Conviene advertir que la investigación y calificación de las infracciones penales es competencia estricta de la Fiscalía y del Juzgado, y que debe quedar descartada cualquier interferencia al respecto.

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 21 de junio de 2021