Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor Doherty for his presentation of such interesting topics, some of which have been raised by other members. When we debated the question of the definition, it has become clear, as the professor noted, that it is about not simply the definition but also who decides or interprets the definition. In general, the default interpretation seems to favour the employer in how it chooses to categorise those whom it employs or those who work for them. It is probably one of the fundamental issues that, initially, the employer holds the power. Challenging that interpretation requires a process of scope, through the courts or through difficult individual solutions.

I was interested in the Uber category. My information may be out of date but, as I understand it, Belgium has defined Uber drivers as employees in a more classic sense, that is, not as the in-between category that exists in the UK. It defines employees as persons who for remuneration undertake to work for another person under the latter's authority and has applied the definition with the associated supports and so on. It is good to see. A battle of interpretation is taking place everywhere and that is another interesting frame in that regard.

There are a few interesting aspects. While it is true that the platform or gig economy is not as widespread, the professor is right that we need to take action. Between 2016 and 2019, we have moved from there being one quarter of employees in non-standard employment to one half. We saw how quickly zero-hour contracts spread. I am often convinced that good practice tends to stay in pilot stage for ever while bad practice moves like wildfire.

I am interested in what the professor said about how we might expand that sectoral-type approach, which would be useful. There are two or three aspects on which the professor might elaborate, including the idea of collective bargaining as a sectoral standard. An unusual aspect of it is discriminatory practice. My colleague Senator Ruane is bringing forward legislation on spent convictions. One of the issues that arise is that those with spent convictions can find it impossible to get insurance. When one is self-employed or falsely categorised as self-employed, there are entire sectors in which virtually the only work one can get is self-employment. There are categories of people, however, who can find it difficult to become self-employed. It is interesting that there may be a discriminatory dimension to the matter.

Professor Doherty noted that there are particular areas of trust, confidence and safety, one of which was domestic work and home care. The regulation of home care is an issue that has been pending for ever, and we know it is one of the major areas of growth that most needs regulation early because it would be vulnerable to challenge in the future, for example, under corporate courts if we moved towards investor court dispute mechanisms. We need to get the regulations right and have them clearly and well established.

I have a concern about chain liability. As I have indicated to the union, I can see one positive aspect of it, where the liability extends and where the liability can be pushed down to a subcontractor who can dissolve in a moment and reappear, which, as we know, some companies do as they need to. I am concerned that we need it to be extended to the platform or gig economy where multiple individuals who may happen to have ordered food become categorised as the top-level responsibility, and all the companies deflect responsibility. In certain areas I can see it being good but I am worried about it being atomised at the end to the point where it becomes almost impossible for an employee to identify the person who is ultimately responsible. For those who access services in this platform, it is hard for them to know where they can get justice.

I am interested in public procurement and am bringing forward legislation on the matter in April. I would love to chat with the professor about it because it is fascinating. One of the concerns I have about it is the price and where we embed. I fully agree with the professor in respect of that engagement with practices. The legislation is in line with the EU directive's obligation to abide by existing laws because it applies to everybody equally and so on, and existing legal practices and labour resolution practices should be included in that regard. Is the professor satisfied that it is fundamentally better to seek the best price-quality ratio rather than the lowest cost? Is the best place for us to embed these measures within the quality criteria or within exclusions where certain companies are excluded from application? I am considering both in my legislation.