Professor Michael Doherty:

I thank the Deputy. I will deal with the competition aspect first. I am sure the committee members will be aware of the history of this but for a long time the issue related to the three particular categories of voice-over actors, session musicians and freelance journalists. For many years, throughout social partnership, etc., this issue was raised continuously. It was raised with the troika during the programme period; I am trying to avoid saying "bailout". It is a long-running issue. The legislative response has dealt with the issue for those specific categories of workers, which is entirely appropriate.

My interest, as is the Deputy's in terms of her question, is who else might benefit from this. The honest answer right now is that I am not aware of any other group on behalf of which the unions have made an application under this legislation. In terms of my view on it, I have spoken at a few events about its relevance for this platform or gig work because it seems to be a potential way such workers could at least have the benefit of collective bargaining. It could be applied in a broad range of scenarios where the employment status is not as clear-cut as a standard employment relationship. For example, it could apply for care workers who provide services in domestic homes and are not employed by a hospital, a care giving company or something like that. It has many potential applications. One of the limitations of the Act is the provision whereby in order for the Minister to accept an application, he or she has to ensure there is no cost to the State. I have been a bit cynical about that because what is the point of collective bargaining if it does not have a cost? It has to have a cost to somebody.

Some weeks ago, the European Committee of Social Rights noted that an overly restrictive interpretation of that by the Irish Legislature would run the risk of being in violation of the European Social Charter. The European Committee of Social Rights was of the view that prior to the introduction of this Act, Ireland was in breach of its obligations under the social charter. Some of the members felt that this remedied it but only if it is applied in a proportionate way and not in a very restrictive way. Some felt that we were still in breach. The short answer is that there are no other workers of whom I am aware currently but the potential exists. I would like to see a proposal being put to the Minister to see the parameters of this and what will be expected.

In terms of the second question, and Congress may have made references to this in its submission, the division of competence between scope and the social welfare side of the house on one hand and the WRC and the employment rights on the other hand is probably not ideal because people with very different backgrounds are making different decisions and are looking at different aspects. Revenue and social welfare officials will have a particular interest. WRC inspectors will have a slightly different one.

I have just read a fantastic PhD thesis, which I hope will be disseminated, that will be of real interest to this committee. It is on the application of day-to-day social welfare entitlements for both EU and non-EU citizens coming here. Much of it is around the appeals mechanism, the difficulties people have moving from one level to the other and the effective impossibility of a High Court hearing for the vast majority of applicants. One way of addressing that might be to move all of these functions under one roof. The WRC would probably be preferable. The people in social protection have very specific expertise but this probably calls for a broader approach than just looking at the issue of PRSI and related matters.

The problem with legislative solutions is that they are individual solutions and they depend on the ability, willingness and capacity of an individual, who is often vulnerable, by definition, to take difficult, complex and time-consuming litigation. Even before the tribunals, the vast majority of the time the employer will have legal representation and there is no legal aid for tribunals of this nature. That is why I always look for the possibility of collective or sectoral solutions, which can be through old-fashioned collective bargaining, where people join unions and the union bargains on their behalf, or via State-set sectoral standards.

To segue into public procurement, I might take the second part of the question because it follows on from what I have said. It is utterly unacceptable for organisations which have been awarded State contracts not to engage with the State dispute resolution machinery.