Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McMahon. I have some questions now but I will allow a second round of questions. I had to cut some members short to keep the meeting moving but I hope we will get to a second round.

On Mr. McMahon's submission and the matters detailed in the correspondence we have to hand, my concern is that we have one of the lowest rates of employer PRSI contributions in the European Union. While that is fair enough, if there are discrepancies and the State is not getting its full whack, that is obviously a concern. There are also concerns about precarious employment. Some of my acquaintances have been caught in these bogus self-employment situations in construction and it is not very nice.

Most of what is happening seems to rest on the test case in 1995. I will outline what I know about the case and Mr. McMahon can correct me if I am wrong. The case in 1995 was taken by a courier who believed he was an employee. He was classified by his employer as self-employed. He then appealed that judgment to the scope section of the Department which upheld the decision. The case was then to go to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. In the interim, the individual in question emigrated because his employment status was precarious at that stage. At that point, the company, which I will not name although I am aware of the name, stepped in and produced another person who was counted as a worker. My information is that this person may not have been an actual motorcycle, bicycle, van or lorry courier and may instead have been a director of the company. His case was put forward to the scope section and it went through to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. Subsequently, it was determined that person was self-employed.

I want to be careful here as I do not want anyone named but my understanding is that this is the test case on which rests all the later goings on regarding bogus self-employment and what is being used to explain and defend it at times. Is that correct?