Gerald Nash (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. We are on the same page in our mutual determination to deal with issues surrounding precarious work, making sure work pays and that people's dignity in the workplace is not only respected but also properly vindicated. I accept, as does the Labour Party, that we do not have a monopoly of wisdom. Therefore, we will be pleased to work with the Minister and her officials to try to ensure we properly kick the tyres in dealing this legislation and that it will be robust enough to deliver on the intentions expressed in the legislation.

Early in her contribution the Minister referred to her level of understanding of how the legislation might enhance and safeguard the rights of persons in bogus self-employment. The code of practice agreed in the mid-2000s between the employer bodies and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has been in operation for some time.It may have served a purpose at that time, given the complexion of the labour market between then and the late 2000s, but colleagues in the Chamber and people who have worked on the front line of industrial relations in recent years will agree that the code of practice is inadequate for allowing us to deal with the increasing severity of the current problem.

I have examined the figures captured by the quarterly national household survey, QNHS. The Minister's Department used them when it started the process of considering this phenomenon in 2015 in the context of potential tax and PRSI losses to the Exchequer. We are referring to 228,000 of the 312,000 people, or some 66%, who have self-declared as self-employed without employees. We need to recognise that not all of them are the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or a remarkably talented entrepreneur who will be involved in the productive end of the economy creating hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. I am convinced by the cases that I deal with in my constituency - the Minister and others might deal with similar cases - that this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed for the same reason that low-hour and if-and-when contracts need to be addressed. We must ensure that there is a floor of decency in the economy, people's rights are vindicated and protected, and the intention of their contracts, or the intention they understand them to have, is properly respected and defended.

I was concerned when I read the report that emanated from the Department in recent weeks on foot of the process started in 2015. It identified one of the key drivers of disguised self-employment, as it is elegantly described in the report, as the differential between PRSI rates. An employee pays 4% with an employer's PRSI of 10.75%. There is an incentive for a bad employer to reduce labour costs. Based on the Minister's responses and the suggestions - the report makes suggestions rather than recommendations - it is not clear what the Department will do about this beyond making some reference to the fact that the gulf between the various classes of PRSI stamp needs to be decreased to reduce the incentive. Instead of tinkering on the edges and raising greater awareness of the operation of the scope section, we need a more determined approach. One way would be to take the tests that have appeared in statute for the first time in the form of the Competition (Amendment) Act and apply them in terms of the determination of self-employment to the general worker population through primary law. That is the cleanest and most efficient way.

I was concerned when I read numbers from the scope section stating that 138 people had been moved to class A stamps last year. Looking at the bald figures, this suggests that bogus self-employment is not an issue, but we know that it is.