Seanad Éireann recently passed my party's Competition (Amendment) Bill, which has now been placed on the Order Paper of Dáil Éireann. As I think it is the first Private Members' Bill that will pass all Stages in either House since the general election, I am naturally pleased that the Government has accepted the legislation and tabled useful amendments to improve it. The Bill only deals with the one aspect of bogus self-employment. There are pernicious and unacceptable arrangements simply to save bogus employers the cost of social insurance. Employees are coerced into falsely describing themselves as self-employed or independent contractors and, in so doing, are required to exclude themselves from the protection of employment law and the welfare system. The European Court has ruled that one is falsely self-employed if one does the same work as an employee, if one is in a relationship of subordination and required to follow instructions about the time, place and content of one's work and if one is integrated into the employer's undertaking. The Bill the Labour Party presented to the Seanad directs regulators to see through this sham and address the reality rather than the pretence. In truth, the people affected are employees and must be treated as such, with access to the rights granted in and the procedures of the employment system. The Bill is a first step and deals with just the one aspect: the right to join a trade union and bargain collectively. Does acceptance of the Bill in the other House signal a new approach to the issue, namely, a determination to tackle bogus self-employment? With a statutory definition now available, as agreed by the other House, will the Government ask the tax and welfare authorities to fully engage on the issue? Each has its own investigative unit. Will the Taoiseach ask the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection to address and identify the issue of bogus self-employment? Is the Government determined to use all of its powers to stamp out a practice that is destructive of employees' security and rights and bring employers and employees back into the correct and proper environment regulated by law?

That is the environment in which everybody wants them to be. I am glad that the Bill brought forward by the Deputy's party in the Seanad was accepted, with amendments. I assume that the Deputy will bring the Bill before this House in Private Members' time. If it has been accepted by the Government in the Seanad, I do not see what objections will arise in the meantime. We will need to study the implications of the Bill fully, but its intent is correct. It is right that there be proper legal coverage for employees and no bogus employers. I understand the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection are engaged on the issue and that a joint working group has been set up. Enforcement is being stepped up, especially in the construction sector in which elements of bogus self-employment were clearly evident. I suggest the Deputy bring the Bill before this House. In the meantime, the working group set up by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection will continue to focus on the issues in hand.

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. Bogus self-employment costs the Exchequer millions of euro in lost tax and social security contributions, but, more importantly, it deprives workers of a vital social safety net. As the Taoiseach referenced, a consultative process on bogus self-employment was initiated by my colleague, Deputy Joan Burton, when she was Minister for Social Protection, and ran up to 31 March this year. What was the outcome of that consultation? Will the working group publish a report and, if so, when? Will it publish recommendations and, if so, when will we see them? Private Members' time is very scarce for all of us on the Opposition benches. May we have agreement to take a Bill such as this outside the time allocated for both Government and Opposition business if it is an issue of such importance?

In the spirit of new politics, that matter may be discussed by the Business Committee. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, welcomed the cross-party agreement in the Seanad on 10 November. The Competition (Amendment) Bill was introduced, as Deputy Brendan Howlin knows, by Senators Ivana Bacik and Gerald Nash. When enacted, three categories of workers, namely, voice-over actors, session musicians and freelance journalists, will be exempt from section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 and allowed to engage in collective bargaining.

Additionally, a formal response is set out allowing trade unions to apply for similar exemptions for certain categories of self-employed workers. The Minister was happy to work with Senators Ivana Bacik and Gerald Nash in that regard and they were complimented on the collaborative way in which they had worked with the Government. As the working group established by the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection decides on the issues to be dealt with, the Minister will make a response when it has finalised its work. I am sure enforcement is being stepped up.

Does the Taoiseach know when the Minister will respond?

The amendments insert a new Part 2B into the Competition Act 2002 and provide for the application of section 4 of the Act to collective bargaining and agreements for certain categories of worker. Also a new Schedule 4 is to be inserted into the Competition Act to give effect to a previous Government commitment, given in the programme of Government, Towards 2016, on review and transitional arrangements. The exemptions will take effect when the Bill comes into force and an application for an exemption will not be required for the three categories listed in the Schedule. The amendments allow the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to bring the legislation into operation by order, with different days being appointed for different purposes, as the Deputy is well aware. It also provides that the entire legislation shall come into operation no later than three months after its enactment. If the Business Committee decides to take the Bill early, I do not see why it cannot have the support of the House and be passed into law.