Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The most important question, probably, is how the employers' group defines bogus self-employment. I beg to differ with the remarks made regarding the construction industry. In 1999, the Committee of Public Accounts instructed Revenue to investigate bogus self-employment in construction. That investigation found that 20% of people were found to be misclassified as self-employed. The following year, the Comptroller and Auditor General demanded another review of the area to ensure there had been no misunderstanding in terms of the findings. That investigated was repeated because he was not satisfied the issue had been resolved. Revenue was forced to reinvestigate construction and again 20% of people were found to be misclassified as self-employed. This is not an issue that arose yesterday or today, or last year. The Committee of Public Accounts-ordered investigation was carried out in 1999 and this practice was happening prior to that.

There is a serious problem with bogus self-employment. It skews the labour market from the point of view of workers' rights and entitlements, payments to Revenue and employers' responsibilities in terms of PRSI classification and so on. It also skews the economy and the rights of the worker, which is a really important point. We know that there are bogus self-employment contracts are operating right across the economy, including in the courier and English language teaching sectors. Pilots are also operating on contracts under which they are not directly employed by their employer, as are journalists, pharmaceutical and construction workers.

I received an email recently from a woman who took up a position in CIE Tours on Abbey Street. She had to engage with the scope section in regard to her working conditions. The scope section upheld her claim that she was directly employed by CIE Tours, insurable under the Social Welfare Acts under PRSI Class A, but CIE Tours is appealing that decision. This woman claims that most of the people working in that company are in bogus self-employment. They are forced to sign contracts that put them in that category and they are afraid to stand up and be counted because of the precarious situations they are in. This does not lead to an economy from which all workers benefit and in which they are protected under labour court law.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, I am sure, has a great deal of contact with the scope section. A number of actions have been proposed in regard to addressing bogus self-employment, including that workers should only be allowed to register as self-employed if they satisfy agreed criteria. However, it has been said that the new system is not clear in that regard. It is also proposed that principal contractors be made liable for 10.95% employer PRSI for all subcontractors; that Revenue's capacity for PRSI non-compliance interventions be strengthened; and that the Workplace Relations Commission-Labour Court should replace the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection in reviewing and reporting misclassifications, which is important. Currently, the scope section and the WRC-Labour Court do work in this area but I think only one body should do this work. People often have to engage with the High Court through the scope section and must jump through numerous hoops to ascertain their classification. I seek the witnesses' views on the recommended repayment by employers found guilty of the misclassification of workers of all unpaid PRSI payments and on the introduction of legislation to define the term "worker-employee". What was proposed by Professor Michael Doherty is complicated but it can be done. It is up to as politicians and employers groups to ascertain what that is.