Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 30 March 2021

Public Accounts Committee

Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion

12:30 pm

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

The letter dated 7 March from the head of Revenue states that because that person proposes to treat couriers as self-employed for tax purposes, courier firms are not obliged to deduct tax and PRSI through the PAYE system. The first part of the sentence is significant, which says because that person proposes to treat couriers. We have heard many times this is not a matter for Revenue but one for the Department, yet here is Revenue setting out its position. It was a participant in the meeting that was held in the Burlington Hotel on 3 March 1997 and there is correspondence from it afterwards that set out its position. By any fair reading it would seem to me from those pieces of correspondence that Revenue was involved in this process of coming to this agreement, that it was setting out its interpretation of it afterwards and that it was central to it. That is a concern because, from our point of view on the Committee of Public Accounts, there is the matter of whether the State got what was due to it in terms of the proper classification of PRSI. Obviously we are also very concerned that the proper PRSI contributions for workers were not clocked up.

If a person who is a courier, who is on a building site or who is in journalism who is classified as self-employed were to a case, there is always a fear of being blacklisted, which happens across society and not just in this country. It is very much a notable practice in England in the construction industry. The route people here must go is through the scope unit in the Department of Social Protection, which in general seems to form an objective view. When a case is lodged with social welfare appeals, however, the problem is an applicant seems to lose due to the 1997 agreement. Is that the correct analysis of what is happening here? The scope section may look at it objectively, declare that a person is an employee and is not self-employed, but when a case goes to the appeals section in the Department, that section refers back to the 1997 deal. Is that what is happening?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.