Seanad debates
Thursday, 22 February 2024
Nithe i dtosach suíonna - Commencement Matters
EU Directives
9:30 am
Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Richmond.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is always good to see the Minister of State. I thank him for coming in.
I will start by quoting his colleague, the Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney, in response to a question from Deputy O'Reilly last November with regard to the platform economy. The Minister said that "Ireland has robust mechanisms for the determination of the employment status and the Government is committed to tackling false self-employment wherever it occurs."
Last night, I wandered up Camden Street, which is just ten minutes from here, and what Members will see outside any of the fast food restaurants are gatherings of young people - young men and women - hanging around in the dark waiting for a fare. It is the modern day equivalent of the old hiring fairs. I put it to the Minister of State that the Government is not committed to tackling false self-employment because if it was, it would have long ago tackled the issues of exploitation we can see on our high streets on any given evening in any major city in our country.
In December, the EU published a proposed directive on platform work, which was aimed at fixing the issues caused by the relationships between platform services and their workers. The directive aims to protect workers from exploitation by digital platform companies, such as Deliveroo and FreeNow. It is a directive that has been considerably watered down already. I have to put on record that I am hugely disappointed by the Government's position on this at European Council level, where the Government insisted on watering down the proposals that came with from the European Parliament in respect of this directive.Those who provide the labour for these companies - the riders and drivers - are not classed as employees but as self-employed, meaning they do not get the same rights and protections as employees, such as minimum wage and entitlements to sick pay or maternity leave. The working conditions of these so-called self-employed workers have been getting worse, with the average return from a delivery falling to less than €3, while the platform companies that hire them record massive profits. The lack of regulation has resulted in a toxic sector of the economy, with exploitation, dangerous working conditions and exceptionally low pay. Many of us have spoken about this situation for years, yet here we are, almost four years into this Government, and nothing has been done for these people.
Last week, the Department of Finance published a report on self-employment labour flows. The report denominates 70% of Ireland’s self-employed as "necessity entrepreneurs", based largely on whether they have any employees. However, what the 25-page report fails to take into account, investigate or even mention is the number of these so-called self-employed who are being exploited in the platform economy. Last September, five months ago, The Examinerreported there were upwards of 3,000 permanently active food delivery platform workers, not including dormant or part-time workers. A large number of the so-called self-employed the Department of Finance referred to are, in fact, operating for digital platform companies and are simply labelled self-employed so the likes of Deliveroo, which has only 20 employees in Ireland, can continue to exploit the legislative position and the vulnerable individuals who bear the costs of convenience and provide these multinational platforms with record year-on-year profits.
Simultaneously, we see lobbying from the platform economies towards the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to introduce a so-called charter on flexible work, which would enshrine the rights of the platform companies to continue using these systems. I cannot express how disappointed I am with the failure to date of the Government to tackle this issue of gross exploitation, which we can see on our high streets across all of our major cities.
The EU directive, while welcome, does not go far enough. Does the Government intend to expand the provisions laid out in the directive and update the code of practice in determining employment status, which is about as clear as mud at the moment, or will the Government continue to ignore these workers, many of whom are immigrant students?
Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will be clear because the history of this is important. One of the key aims of the original directive was that the EU Council would push for a position in which workers would be legally presumed to be employed. That position was watered down and the Government supported the watering down. That is the key point I am making.
On the determination of whether someone is self-employed or employed, it is frankly not adequate. The evidence that it is not adequate can be seen on our high streets on any given evening. I will ask the Minister of State a straightforward question. Does he accept there is exploitation happening in this sector? I also note that, as of recently, his Department has had six meetings with employer groups as opposed to two meetings with trade unions. Again, the Minister of State may wish to comment on that.
My key point is that, right now, these young workers are being failed. They are being exploited in a most horrendous manner, and almost four years into its term, the Government has done nothing about it. It could look at the Spanish model or the New York model, which applies a minimum fee on all deliveries. That is what it could have done, and I urge it to do so. These workers cannot wait any longer for protections; they need them now.
Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When it comes to looking at the high streets, we need to be more subjective and objective. Platform work is a good thing if done right. We should be able to agree on that, but it needs full and robust protections. I believe we have the mechanisms in place but there is unfortunately exploitation going on in this sector. I fundamentally agree with the Senator on that point. I will not argue about that, and I will work to make sure we target that exploitation.
On the meetings I have had, I have met with one company engaged in platform work and one trade union delegation. I had a meeting with one of each - that is it. I have another meeting in my diary for another employer group for 8 April. I am more than happy to meet another trade union delegation. I have been doing it through the guise of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and through my own trade union, SIPTU, of which I am a member. That is no problem.
I urge caution on the Spanish model. The reason we have not reached agreement on the directive until this point is that the clear focus of the Spanish Presidency lends itself to the system operated in Spain. I would argue that that is much different to what is in going on in the rest of the European Union, specifically here. For as long as I am Minister of State, I certainly do not intend to push the Spanish model. The Senator may favour it but I am afraid that is just a disagreement he and I will have.
Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What about the New York model?
Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I undertake to take a closer look at that. To be honest, I am more familiar with the Spanish one.