Results 6,921-6,940 of 20,088 for speaker:Brian Stanley

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: Okay. I ask Mr. McMahon to proceed.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: Each member will have six minutes. We will try to move as efficiently as we can. I ask members to obey when they are told their time is up and cease asking questions. We want to get everyone in. I will take members as they indicate.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: It was due to the fact that he was one of the people involved in the process, and a copy was sent to the stakeholders.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I ask Mr. McMahon to be careful in referring to that as it is a document which belongs to another committee that has not yet been finalised.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: Mr. McMahon will make a submission on that.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I am sorry, but I have to try to keep to time to allow everyone in. There are 13 members.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I ask Mr. McMahon to give a brief answer because we have gone over time.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: The Deputy is over his time.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I ask Mr. McMahon to give a brief reply only because we have gone way over time.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: 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....

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: The scope section of the Department of Social Protection has upheld that the worker in question was not self-employed but an employee. Is that correct?

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: There is correspondence that went back and forth. There is correspondence from the head of Revenue, dated March 1997, which was circulated to all known courier firms, particularly those which were represented at a meeting in the Burlington Hotel on 3 March 1997. There is some correspondence that followed on from that to the legal firm which represented some of those present. Who else was...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: 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...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: To clarify, it is a test case. Is it a 1997 deal as well in terms of that agreement?

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: Some members had other questions. They can indicate if they wish to come back in and I will let them speak in that order. I will ask a question while members are trying to decide on their questions. In a reply to the Committee of Public Accounts from Revenue on 3 February, following its appearance before the committee to a question on the basis, legal or otherwise, for couriers to be deemed...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I refer to another reply from Revenue where the question read: A test case regarding bogus self employment amongst couriers was discussed. Please provide further details in relation to this case including detailing any associated costs. The reply stated: Reference to a “test case" regarding bogus self employment amongst couriers had been raised at the Joint Oireachtas Committee...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: If I may intervene for a moment, a report has been done by Eversheds and it is available. In fairness to RTÉ, it does not have representatives at the meeting to defend itself. I ask witnesses and members to be careful in that regard.

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: A submission was received from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. No one from ICTU is here but it sent a submission, in fairness. The submission states that in the absence of legislative provision, unfortunately, individual workers will be forced to pursue costly civil cases. Mr. McMahon has outlined that some of these workers would have to go to the High Court rather than the Circuit...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: They also went on to state in their submission that arising from all they set out, it was their considered view that the only effective resolution to this long outstanding matter was the introduction of legislative measures whereby all workers are classified as direct employees in the first instance - in other words, they would flip that over completely - until proven otherwise by the...

Public Accounts Committee: Bogus Self-Employment: Discussion (30 Mar 2021)

Brian Stanley: I do not see anyone else indicating to come in. The final question I have is in relation to where this should go from here regarding the area being examined. What does Mr. McMahon think is the most appropriate means of examining this? What body should examine it?