Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate Senator Gavan raising this issue, and it is one I have done quite a bit of work on both in the EU Council and through meeting stakeholders from the trade union movement and employers. It is my duty, as a Minister of State, to meet all sectors and all sides. I am more than happy to engage with Senator Gavan, as I have done with his party colleague in the other House.

To address directly the title of the debate, the proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work aims to ensure that people working through digital labour platforms can fully enjoy the labour rights and social benefits they are entitled to. It also aims to support the sustainable growth of digital labour platforms in the European Union. The directive notably outlines measures to correctly determine the employment status of people working through such platforms and promote transparency and fairness in algorithmic management, that is, automated systems supporting or replacing managerial functions.

The directive also aims to empower people to be aware of decisions affecting their working conditions. They have a right to be informed about automated systems and how they function. The directive also requires human oversight of the automated systems to ensure their compliance with working conditions and provides the right to contest automated decisions such as terminating or suspending accounts.

The directive is currently in the European legislative process. A second provisional agreement reached in the trilogue process in late January failed to reach the required qualified majority vote, QMV, to pass last week, with four member states unable to lend their support to the proposal. The Belgian Presidency has confirmed it is now exploring whether it can find a compromise that can find sufficient support for the latest agreement. If a qualified majority can be reached, the proposal will be debated by ministers at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, EPSCO, meeting on 11 March, which I will attend, as I have attended all EPSCO meetings since my appointment to this office.

I confirm that Ireland did not oppose the latest proposal for agreement. To be frank, I take issue with the suggestion that we have sought to water down this directive. We have engaged in the process and have been supportive of it from the outset. I do not say that as someone looking on at the European Council meetings but as someone who has sat in the room, had the debate and spoken publicly and privately in sessions at formal and informal EPSCO meetings setting out my position that the platform directive is needed in a form suitable for all 27 member states. It should not be tailored to only one member state.

I also underline that Ireland already has mechanisms in place for persons who believe their employment status is incorrectly determined. Senator Gavan knows this as he has worked in this area much longer than many others have. A claim can be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which will consider, relying on Irish and European jurisprudence, whether the facts support a finding that the person is indeed in an employment relationship.

On the code of practice, on which I want to give the Senator the most specific answer I can, the revised code of practice on determining employment status was published in July 2021 by the then Minister for Social Protection. The code is the key guidance document for employers, workers and others with regard to deciding the employment status of a worker. It is revised to take account of newer labour developments, including platform work. Work is under way between the Department of Social Protection, the Revenue Commissioners and the Workplace Relations Commission to review and update this code of practice on determining employment status, and in studying the recent Supreme Court ruling. I do not want to get into detail of that ruling in this House, as the Senator will understand. To return to the crux of his question, we are revising the code of practice and I would welcome his insight in that regard, as both an elected representative and a trade union official of many years.