Gerald Nash (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I wish to tease out a question with Mr. Dooley later in the proceedings. My initial appeal to the delegates is not to put a tooth in it and to be very clear about what the practice involves on the ground. Without putting words in the mouths of colleagues around the table, it is fair to say Members of the Oireachtas are very clear in their view on what needs to happen in providing for more significant deterrents and more legally robust provisions to tackle in law the practice of bogus self-employment. It is fair to say the Minister, her officials and officials of the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners may take a different view on the approach to be adopted in dealing with the level of bogus self-employment, but I am very clear on it.

The practice of bogus self-employment amounts to nothing short of fraud. It is a fraud on the State and the taxpayer; in my clear opinion it is a matter of corruption on a mass scale. The State can have all the inspection regimes, investigation systems and deterrents that it wants but the numbers engaged in bogus self-employment are growing. The figures are very clear and it is not just a phenomenon exclusive to the construction sector, where it may be most apparent and members might see it most clearly. We know the practice is endemic in the transport sector and information technology, and it is growing in legal and financial services as well. It seems the legal deterrents just are not there.

I agree with Ms King that we need clear legal definitions anchored in primary law to indicate very clearly the difference between employment and self-employment. We could learn something from the legislation on which my colleague, Senator Bacik, and I worked with the National Union of Journalists, SIPTU and ICTU, namely, the Competition (Amendment) Act 2017. I would appreciate the view of witnesses in terms of what we can learn from that and how we can apply some of those provisions to the broader population to try to deal with this issue and the wider consequences of the gig economy, including implications for people in employment.

Do witnesses agree that we need to treat PRSI cheats the same way we treat tax defaulters? They will be aware that legislation I developed and which got through Second Stage last year is attempting to wind its way through the Oireachtas. I see the process as providing more significant evidence to compel the Minister to move on that legislation, as we need deterrents and clear legal definitions in law. That proposed legislation would insist that we treat PRSI cheats the exact same way as we treat tax defaulters. This should be treated as a criminal act and we should provide for criminal sanctions and ensure that we can recover the PRSI sums lost to the Exchequer. We must ensure there are more serious fines in place. As I understand it, currently the fine for not paying the appropriate level of PRSI is approximately €3,000. I cannot identify a single case where somebody has been jailed for not paying PRSI and for pulling the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer and the State and essentially defrauding the country.

There absolutely must be a stronger role for the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, in this process. As witnesses are aware, I introduced a provision in that legislation that passed Second Stage last year to provide for that stronger role. I am really interested in Mr. Wall's views on a greater function for the WRC in determining employment status. I know that as the representative of construction workers, he and people like Mr. Paddy Kavanagh of Connect trade union have a number of cases that have been going through the system. There have been very interesting determinations from the WRC. I would like to tease that out with the witnesses to see the implications in that regard.

I have a question for Mr. Dooley with reference to the Competition (Amendment) Act 2017 and what we can possibly learn from it and, specifically, the transposition of definitions and characteristics relating to employment and self-employment into broader legislation. The Competition (Amendment) Act 2017 applies to session musicians, freelance journalists and voice-over actors but it also provides a route to collective bargaining for very exposed freelance workers. I would like the witnesses to relate to the committee what progress the union movement is making in trying to organise very vulnerable workers. That might provide another fix for addressing some of the worst excesses of these kinds of practices.

Will Mr. Wall tell us about his experience in addressing the skills deficit in the construction sector? In my area, I know from speaking with people in construction unions that it is proving very difficult to attract apprentices into the system because they have no guarantee of permanent and pensionable employment. That is something they should be entitled to expect, given the skills they will develop and the requirements this economy has for skilled construction workers in future. Will Mr. O'Hanlon elaborate on his experience and that of Fórsa and the Irish Air Line Pilots Association in trying to organise pilots forced into positions where they are involved in intermediary-type arrangements by some airlines to allow them to work?

I have a question for Ms King. It has been said this practice really amounts to illegal State aid. It queers the pitch competition-wise by allowing some rogue employers to take all the benefits and it leads to an imbalance in competition in the sector. As Mr. Wall and others know, there are some good construction employers who will engage in sectoral employment orders and so on and they want to retain and recruit quality staff and provide them with the basic legal requirements but others will not. It could be argued that the growing tolerance for bogus self-employment amounts to something akin to a illegal State aid. I would appreciate ICTU's view on that.