Deputy Michael Moynihan is next. He did not get in yesterday.

The home tuition issue comes under the bogus self-employment legislation. There is an issue for teachers who are appointed to home tuition for children who cannot attend school. One arm of the State, the Revenue Commissioners, has deemed them as employees of the State. According to the scope section of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, they are self-employed. They are in a conundrum at the moment. The taxes and PRSI they have paid are of no benefit to them because they come in as class S contributions. Is there any attempt to remedy this? The State is looking at private companies and bogus self-employment. This issue could be categorised as bogus self-employment. Is there any initiative by the Government to regularise their situation to ensure that teachers under this scheme are properly looked after and paid as per the Department of Education and Skills regulations? They should get the same rates. One arm is saying one thing and the other arm is saying another thing.

I will have to have that checked out. It was my understanding that the final say on whether someone is self-employed was made by the scope section of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection rather than Revenue. If one is saying one thing and the other is saying another, then we have a problem. If the Deputy could give me some examples, we will get them checked out to see if we can resolve the situation.

I wish to pick up on one point. Deputy Michael Moynihan mentioned that people paying PRSI at S class do not receive any benefits. That is not correct. One of the major reforms we have made in government in the past two or three years is to extend to people who are self-employed and who pay PRSI at S class almost all of the benefits that employees get. These include treatment benefit, jobseeker's benefit, invalidity pension, paternity and maternity benefit and the State contributory pension.