Employment Rights

Tuesday, 12 December 2023

Questions (495)

Paul Murphy

Question:

495. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 350 of 28 November 2023, and the reference what were unequivocally 'test cases' as 'so-called test cases', given the fact that as previously supplied (details supplied) have all unequivocally admitted to the use of test cases in writing, and the fact that test cases were used by the Department raises liability issues for the Department and the continued use of the term 'so-called test cases' by her is preventing legal clarity for workers, if she will now concede that test cases were used and that these test cases were not 'so-called test cases'. [55074/23]

View answer

Written answers

Minister for Social Protection

As outlined in my replies to the Deputy on 14 and 28 November, a number of so-called ‘test cases’ relating to the insurability status of a person were examined by the Department in the 1990s to support the identification of criteria that could be used by Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers when making decisions in relation to the correct class of PRSI applying to an employment. The criteria identified from the examination of these cases formed the basis of the approach subsequently agreed with the Social Partners under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and set out in the Code of Practice for the Determination of the Employment or Self-employment Status of Individuals. These criteria are set out in sections 7 and 8 of the Code of Practice and are applied by Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers on each occasion that they assess the insurability of a worker as being either an employee or self-employed. However, it is important to again stress that employment status decisions are never made by the Department or the Social Welfare Appeals Office without an investigation having been carried out into the actual circumstances of the person's engagement.

Question No. 496 answered with Question No. 485.