Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their presentations and for the work that they are doing to tackle this serious and widespread problem. As Deputy Joan Collins stated, many questions have already been asked, so I will be brief. The current line of the Minister when asked about this is to stated that she recognises it is an issue, that there needs to be a whole-of-Government response to it, that it is being worked on and that it should be left in the Government's hands. How would our guests rate the response of the Government in respect of this issue? Is it taking it seriously enough? Has it acted fast enough? Are the measures it is proposing going to be sufficient in terms of dealing with the issue?

When one raises this matter with the Government, one often gets an answer along the lines of that which I received from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, at a meeting of the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach in 2018 regarding a proposed amendment to the Finance Bill. The Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection gave a similar response in the Seanad at the time. The Minister for Finance stated:

If I could anchor the algebra in more prosaic words, it is the view of the Department that, at an aggregate level, the data are not indicative of a significant increase in the prevalence of self-employment in the economy over the past 16 years.

The Ministers emphasised that, on the whole, self-employment has not gone up. Hidden behind that is the idea that bogus self-employment probably has not gone up. Can our guests speak from what they have experienced on the front line over the past ten to 16 years or so? Has the incidence of bogus self-employment in the various industries with which they are connected increased and, if so, by how much? I presume this matter arises in their negotiations and discussions with individual employers and employer groups. What is the attitude of individual airlines, IBEC and the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, to it?

What Mr. Cullen said is striking and horrifying, particularly if it is accurate. I take his word for its accuracy. The idea that any woman would be forced to choose between employment and pregnancy and would be obliged to terminate her pregnancy in order to maintain her employment is horrifying. Will Mr. Cullen confirm that he knows of cases where women who otherwise would not have had terminations felt that they had no choice but to do so? I stress that I am pro-choice but, for me, that is both sides of pro-choice, namely, the ability of a woman to choose to have a child - and without this kind of incredible outside influence - or to choose not to do so. If what Mr. Cullen outlined is accurate, then it is anathema to the concept of pro-choice.

Mr. Cullen was clear and blunt in stating that Revenue does not care about the situation. That is probably accurate. Will Mr. Cullen indicate the basis on which he can so confidently state that Revenue simply does not care?