Gerald Nash (Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is startling, albeit not surprising for people such as me who have focused on the issue for some time, that there are such high numbers of contractor pilots in the country. People might assume that most of the contractor pilots, who are engaged through arcane and Byzantine intermediary structures to conceal their employment status, are not necessarily from airlines that are household names in this country or those that are strongly associated with the country. Will Mr. Cullen elaborate on why he believes that airlines globally use Ireland as a base for their registration? Does he believe they do so to take advantage of the weakness of our employment protection and tax laws? It is nothing short of an utter scandal. It does not just deprive airline pilots and other individuals who should be deemed as direct employees. As well as ripping them off, it rips off the taxpayer and the Social Insurance Fund. Mr. Cullen cited a stark figure when he conservatively estimated a loss of between €15 million and €16 million per year to the Exchequer and the Social Insurance Fund arising from the misclassification of the employment status of airline pilots. That sum would cover the pay claim of SIPTU-represented healthcare support staff. Although a strike has been deferred today, the claim is for the same amount. That puts the matter into a human context and allows one to understand the impact and consequences. It is not a victimless crime. The taxpayer and citizens are being ripped off by the enabling of such dodgy and dubious practices.

Contracted pilots display all the characteristics of an employee but have receive none of the benefits and are deprived of their employment rights, their employment status and all that flows from that. Where any worker has a concern about his or her employment status, he or she should, as reflected under Irish law, bring that concern to the Revenue Commissioners and the scope section of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to have a determination on the insurability of his or her employment. Mr. Cullen made very clear the difficulties that at least one Irish airline pilot has had in seeking a determination from the scope section and the battery of lawyers the pilot has faced in the pursuit of the vindication of his rights. Deputy O'Dea referred to the arcane, complex structure, where pilots cannot identify the other directors of the company that has been foisted upon them to enable them to have a job with an airline. It is bizarre and unacceptable and it is done purely to conceal someone's employment status and deprive the State of revenue, taxation and social insurance owed to it.

Have any Irish accountancy firms, or lawyers or legal firms, been held to account for such practices? They are essentially tax avoidance schemes. Have they been held to account by the Irish courts, the Revenue Commissioners or their own professional bodies? I am concerned by the treatment of female pilots. For the safety of expectant mothers and babies, there are periods when they are not permitted to fly. I hope that directly employed female pilots are entitled to maternity leave for their own safety, that of their child and the vindication of their rights. Self-employed pilots are in a different position. Will Mr. Cullen outline the difficulties that some female pilots have faced, in his experience? I refer to those who are indirectly employed and caught up in the arrangements that have been discussed. What kind of experiences have they had? I have been alerted by union activists to some horrific examples of the mistreatment of female pilots in pregnancy when they are caught up in indirect employment.

I welcome our colleagues from Unite. Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Kelly and Ms Godkin have vast experience dealing with the phenomenon of bogus self-employment in a number of sectors.

It is the most insidious form of precarious work because the workers are entitled to nothing. They have no benefits or social protection and are deprived of other employment rights and the vindication thereof.

Mr. Fitzgerald made an interesting point regarding the urgent requirement to insert key definitions of what constitutes employment and self-employment into primary law. I sought to do so through my Protection of Employment (Measures to Counter False Self-Employment) Bill 2018 which was frustrated and, ultimately, defeated on Committee Stage in the Seanad a few months ago. We can do all of the tinkering we wish with codes of practice and regulations, but, ultimately, the future of this phenomenon and the thousands of Irish workers caught in bogus self-employment relationships turns on the need to introduce into law very clear definitions of what constitutes employment and self-employment. If that is not done, this phenomenon will continue to grow and get out of hand.