Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Dooley mentioned the centenary of the ILO. Of course, we have also celebrated the programme of the First Dáil. It made clear that the Government should be seeking the "co-operation of the Governments of other countries in determining a standard of Social and Industrial Legislation with a view to a general and lasting improvement in the conditions under which the working classes live and labour". There is, therefore, a double incentive for us to ensure a tide of improvements, rather than moving at the extraordinary speed with which bad practices tend to spread, as eloquently outlined by Mr. O'Hanlon.

I thank the delegates for providing clarity on the issue of repercussions. It was even admitted by the scope unit when it presented to us. In a short line in its presentation it stated the 10,500 who visited its site only translated into very small numbers of telephone calls and emails, but within them, according to the Department, there is evidence that people want to retain their anonymity and fear repercussions. That is clear. It can be frustrating, therefore, when we raise this issue, perhaps directly with the Minister, that we are constantly told to bring example to the Minister. What is clear is that there is a fear of repercussions. It is important to delve into these issues and discuss how we can address them.

The issue of definitions that were mentioned is key. I would like to receive a follow-up note specifically on that directive and how we can contribute in some way in pressing Ireland's position on the European directive. I was interested in some of the phrases used. There was mention of those who are "labour only" and "under the control of". Perhaps, as with every definition, there are also loopholes. For example, is somebody deemed to be labour only if he or she is required to bring certain amounts of equipment? I am interested in how that is shifted around in order that we can try to guard against it in the definitions.

I want to touch, in particular, on the issue of procurement.

I have an interest in this area and I hope to introduce legislation on it later in the spring. We addressed the issue of what I would describe as fraud within public procurement which was described by Ms King but I would like to address two other issues that arise in that regard. There are problems where contracts are not fulfilled. Within that point of contract, are there situations where the lowest cost is being used when the price-quality ratio should be used and a stronger emphasis placed on quality in terms of employment standards?

I know Mr. O'Hanlon also represents many public service workers. The employment control framework and the constraints of the recession allowed for a considerable amount of contracting out in the public sector and this seems to have lingered. Will Mr. O'Hanlon comment on areas where we should be moving out of public procurement and into direct employment within the public sector? It was noted that even in the Oireachtas there are people who should be directly employed because they have one employer, their role is not especially seasonal and it is work that is not going away.

I was very interested in what we heard about red flags and repeat registration. It strikes me that bogus redundancies or large-scale redundancies should be another red flag. Perhaps Mr. O'Hanlon will indicate other red flags that we should mark as effectively triggering investigation in advance, rather than waiting for individuals to bring cases, as we said.