Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Both delegations finished their presentations on a point with which I agree, namely, that we do not have enough data on the scale of the challenge we face. When Department officials appeared before the committee to discuss this issue it was clear that they had not done enough research and their access to various employment sectors was not sufficient to allow them to tell us how great the problem is. We are here representing our constituents and we believe the problem is widespread. I would say that all of us here are members of trade unions and, from data collected by the trade unions, we know there is a deep and growing problem. The witnesses indicated they do not have enough evidence to identify the scale and nature of the challenge. They stated there are not enough data available to support claims made about the levels of bogus self-employment in, for example, the construction industry. We might start by agreeing that we need to look very deeply at this sector and at this problem to find out what is going on. That will require the co-operation of employers, big contractors on building sites and in industry and the State because it too sometimes uses what we would determine to be bogus self-employment to fill roles. In many cases, this is not deliberate and the State does not set out to do it but there has been such an increase in contracting out and subcontracting that malpractice often goes under the radar. We need to get under that radar and examine exactly what is going on.

As a previous speaker said, we are not making this up. We do not have Bills on this issue before the House because we have nothing else to do or it amuses us to do so. There is a real problem here. I will draw attention to some evidence from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. I hope the witnesses will bear with me as I have a lot of notes in front of me. A briefing note from the ICTU states:

The report notes that in 2017 the Joint Investigations Unit [of Revenue] initiated a campaign specifically focussed on the construction sector. As a result of this activity, €60.2 million was recovered by the Revenue Commissioners and nearly 500 subcontractors reclassified as employees [as a consequence]

That is an important fact and one with which the witnesses will not deny. These facts come from Revenue. In 2017, one investigation recovered €60 million that was owed to the State, yet the witnesses are telling us that the evidence is anecdotal, there is nothing to see here and we should move on, and we are somehow imagining a problem when there is none. We should acknowledge that there is a problem but that we have not investigated it properly. Investigating it yields results and the investigation by Revenue is a serious one.

The witnesses also suggested there is not problem because self-employment levels are falling. I will share an interesting point from a study at which they should look because it relates to their industry. The trade union, Connect, has carried out a seriously good study on bogus self-employment. It points out that the Central Statistic Office labour force survey shows that the number of employees in self-employment who do not themselves have employees across a range of employment sectors is increasing significantly. If one takes on a contractor, that contractor is free to take on other people to do work occasionally, permanently or from time to time. While the number of self-employed people who are hiring others to work for them is declining, the number of self-employed people who do not hire anyone else, that is, people who work for themselves, is rising dramatically. That gives one an idea of the type of increase we believe is occurring. In the second quarter of 2018, the percentage of people in construction classified as being in self-employment with no employees was 24.3%, while in the transportation and storage sector it was 14.8%. That compares with a rate of 3.9% in industry as a whole. There is, therefore, a problem. If construction workers are being hired who do not, in turn, hire others, they are defined as having their own contract.

I ask the witnesses to define what they believe to be bogus self-employment. I will describe what we generally accept as the definition of a self-employed person. It is somebody who has control over what is done, how it is done, when and where it is done, and whether he or she does the agreed work personally or hires others to do it. Labour lawyers call this the independence test. It should, therefore, be simple enough to tell what the real thing is. A worker with only the tools of the trade who does not hire or manage other workers or who works when, where and how he or she is told by a boss should always be counted as an employee. Workers like this can be engaged as subcontractors, but they are then treated as self-employed for the purposes of workers' rights, taxation, PRSI, insurance, pensions and so on.

I would like to hear the representatives definition of bogus self-employment. Let us think about the workers in this room. There are people who work for the Civil Service and people who operate the cameras behind the glass. We expect that when they show up for work they are told by their employer what to do and that their pay, hours and conditions are determined by their employer. We do not expect them to provide their own equipment or hire other workers because they are employees. We expect that they do not make a profit based on how much they do regardless of how efficient they are. By most people's common sense definition, they are employees. They turn up and are told up what to do. The workers behind the glass who film these proceedings are not considered employees. They are defined as self-employed. Is that how the witnesses view self-employment? These workers are not entitled to the protections that employment laws give to other workers, including members who pay into pensions and pay PRSI and so on. Their contractors deem them to be self-employed. They sign a contract which states they are a contractor working for the company the State hires to do this job.

They have no choice but to sign up to it. They also have no control over their daily work and how they do it. I make that point because this is a function performed by an arm of the State for the State. I would define that as bogus self-employment. I would like the witnesses to define how they define bogus self-employment.