Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Senator Nash has rightly raised the important issue of the Government's appearance before the ILO in June. I share his concern and those of many in the trade union movement about the statements made in respect of this issue prior to the ILO hearing. In particular, it is important that Ireland cannot argue that following interpretation of EU rules, it is exempt from ILO conventions. It is critical that this artificial distinction between workers and self-employed undertakings is not allowed to inhibit the proper protection of workers' rights.

The Government raised the issue of the European Commission at the ILO hearing. Officials stated the Commission had been consulted on two separate occasions on draft legislation seeking to delimit the application of competition legislation, which is the legislation before us and its previous incarnation in 2012. On both occasions, the Commission indicated it did not see a need for the exemptions from competition law. I agree with Senator Gavan that it would be great if the Bill had at least passed all Stages in the Seanad by November. If amendments can be constructively debated and agreed in the House, the Dáil debate should be expedited. I hope it moves swiftly through the Dáil following the debate in this House. November would be a great time by which to have secured a concrete achievement on this. Our concern is that the amendments will not narrow the scope of the exemption so much that they undermine the Bill. Senator Nash pointed out the other jurisdictions that have crafted similar exemptions. I am concerned that the Government does not use the view of the Commission to inhibit the passage of this Bill because we all clearly agree on the need to pass a form of exemption to the Competition Act.

I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in a little more detail, if she can, the scope of the amendments to this section. She said attention would be paid to the criteria outlined in the ECJ judgments. I presume this refers to the Dutch case, in particular, where the court pointed to various criteria that would enable a finding that somebody while notionally self-employed was, in fact, false self-employed and was somebody in respect of whom trade unions could negotiate fees. Some of the criteria put forward by the ECJ were that the person was acting under the direction of the employer as regards freedom to choose to time, place and content of work, did not share in commercial risks and formed an integral part of an employer's undertaking. What framework does the Minister anticipate putting in place in amending the section?