Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I would like to pick up on a few of the discussion points. I would have a small disagreement with Senator Nash. The Department has not actually been consistent because we do have that statement of 2000 from the Secretary General at the time. I am interested to hear about the change in policy that Mr. Duggan is telling us came about in 2001. The fact is that we have extensive correspondence from the then Secretary General in which it is very clear that they are using test cases. He refers to them as test cases. He sets in place three specific measures, namely, providing one's own vehicle and equipment, responsibility for all expenses, and payment made on the basis of rate per job plus mileage allowance. It is a very specific group ruling. Mr. Duggan is telling us that in 2001, a different approach came into place. I am curious about what was done in terms of redressing the concerns of those who had been impacted.

Many of the cases and concerns we have been discussing go back into the 1990s. While we were offered figures from 2018 and 2019, it would be very useful if we could get figures going back as far as possible. This is not recently arising. In 2018 and 2019 there was already considerable public scrutiny on the area. We have in 2001 this change in policy where these new guidelines came in. I would be interested in what happened in terms of redressing concerns around the inappropriate use of test cases in the years prior to that. I am also seeing a kind of contradiction in the presentations. We have had this very heartfelt reassurance that every case is looked at individually and so on but Ms Gordon also said:

There is no legislative provision which provides for appeals officers to make decisions on [...] groups or classes of workers who are engaged or operate on the same terms and conditions. However, it is also the case that the legislation does not preclude such an approach.

My understanding is that the legislation does preclude such an approach. We have the Denny case and other cases. We have been hearing that every case is dealt with individually. I am just curious about the contradiction within Ms Gordon's own presentation where she suggests the legislation would allow the office to look at the employment status of groups or classes of workers. I note that she mentioned that during her time as chief appeals officer in 2015, the classification of a worker as an employee or self-employed has not been the approach adopted. However, as I know and as Ms Gordon mentioned, an appeals officer proposed this approach.

Ms Gordon is referring to the 2016 case where a group case was proposed by an appeals officer. It has quite recently been the practice. I understand that in that case the employees objected.