Ms Patricia Murphy:

I hope I have them but in respect of those I may not have I will do my best and if there is anything I omit to address, the member can raise it with me. Generally, we are very happy to see scrutiny of this issue. There is no doubt it is an issue. The Department does not have specific statistics, as we have said, but we are very much in a monitoring and engagement mode with ICTU and other representative bodies, and working closely with the inspector operation on this. It is difficult for me to comment on the specific figure put forward by ICTU but we accept there is a loss to the Exchequer specifically from employer's PRSI and a loss to the individual in terms of the employment rights as a result of bogus self-employment. In the context of a worker paying PRSI class S as opposed to PRSI class A, the person is still building up contributions for a State pension contributory into the future.

Regarding the number of inspections that have been done, up to September this year, there were 1,465 employer reviews by this Department with savings of €2.7 million. I have figures for joint workers' revenue of 855 visits in 2017 with overall collection, which would include PAYE, of €60.2 million in the construction sector, which has always been a focus for the inspectorate. In 2017, the WRC carried out 4,747 inspections in respect of 99,000 employees who had been paid wages of €1.7 million. That is the general lie of the land regarding inspections.

In terms of the awareness campaign, the Department was ramped up and prepared for a much bigger individual response. In May of this year the inspectors were all ready to immediately go out on the foot of the awareness campaign and that was indicated in our press releases at the time. We accept there is an issue. As the members have said, it appears to be in pockets of areas. It is more difficult when individuals do not come forward to report it. We were encouraging people to come forward. That process identified to ourselves that we need to have anti-victimatisation and anti-penalisation measures in our legislation and to replicate those measures that are in place in employment rights legislation. There is a fear factor. The message we took on board was that it was very important to get inspectors into the right areas. It may be that the concentration may be geographic as much as sectoral. We welcome the committee examining this issue and we can get feedback from the members and from other bodies appearing before the committee as to where we can usefully focus. We have a big operation. We are ramping up specifically on this space. The inspectors will look at the non-payment of PRSI and other areas. We will be increasing the focus on the insurability aspect as we increasingly ramp up on this area.

Regarding prosecutions, the Department has not taken a criminal prosecution against employers because in our joint operations we have used the powers available under the tax Acts to attach and apply administrative penalties which are far greater than those under the social welfare Acts. Working jointly with Revenue, we have used Revenue powers to ensure employer compliance with the PRSI obligation. It avoids a duplication of the compliance penalty and at this time it would be considered to be more effective and timely. That is the approach taken by the control area. Some €60.2 million overall was collected from employers in 2017. That is the current approach being taken.

On spouses, the law was changed to allow a spouse who works to make class S contributions. That is in place. I will have to come back with the data on appeals.

On the Department's relationship with Revenue, we have a memorandum of understanding. It acts as our agent in the collection of PRSI. We have a high-level group with Revenue that meets very regularly at which we work through a pile of issues. We engage very closely and have been meeting regularly with Revenue on this issue with a view to obtaining sectoral data on where we might focus, both individually and also in our joint operations with agencies.

On the case mentioned by Senator Higgins, the person may come back to the deciding officer for a revised decision should there be any change in facts. The scope section has an active case involving Ryanair. I do not know if I can comment further on that but it is on appeal.

I am unable to respond on state aid. It is a matter for the Department of Finance and Revenue.

The appeals office is reliant on the code. The code outlines the various tests for determining employment and self-employment. They are fundamental. However, the courts have shown that in any case involving the correct rate of PRSI payable, it is the facts of each case, the tests and how they are applied that are critically important. The code outlines these and we are updating it currently. The scope section and the appeals office rely on those tests and the facts of the employment as they receive them. That goes to the heart of the legislation issue and why it is difficult to legislate for this area. The legislation must have the flexibility to allow the tests to be applied to the facts of the individual employment. Each individual employment situation or contract varies and will be different. I used to work in the scope section and dealt with many of them. The tests are standard although the labour market changes. How they are applied can change. Legislation must be approached sensitively.