Professor Michael Doherty:

I think so. I would be strongly in favour of that as it goes back to the point that the State should be a good employer and should also ensure that the contracts it provides are subject to the machinery of the State. On the Chairman's last point, it will become more significant. We all saw the case involving a journalist who has been writing for an Irish newspaper for nearly 30 years and who has now been told he is freelance due to the technicality of a law in another member state. The definitional point is, therefore, important. We are always looking for ways to extract ourselves to the greatest extent possible from finite arguments about definitional criteria. A slightly broader definition of "employee" than currently exists would be useful and the definition the EU is going to propose in certain areas would be useful but it would be good to focus on means by which to avoid getting down to definitional criteria.

However, if we can focus on a means by which we do not have to get down into the definitional criteria, for example, in the area of social insurance or pensions, we can have a look at the entire system and say perhaps contributions should be equalised in some way or at least brought closer together to reduce the incentive for misclassification. It is definitely a package of measures that is required. My final view on it is that I do not like to focus too much on statutory definitions of employees if it is just about access to a range of other rights. The committee might want to think about how they should be granted in and of themselves without considering the definitional issue.