Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2024

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“Report on employer pay-related social insurance rebate

3. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on establishing an employer pay-related social insurance rebate scheme to provide support for businesses impacted by the rising minimum wage. The relief relates to full-time employees earning €650 a week or less. The supports should be on a tapered basis ensuring the greatest level of support for each employee on minimum wage and tapering until the support is removed for full-time employees earning over €650 weekly. The PRSI credit an employer would receive for an employee on minimum wage would be approximately 2 per cent of the gross weekly wage. The scheme should support businesses adjusting to minimum wage increases and protect employment while ensuring low pay is not incentivised.”.

I thank the Deputy for tabling this amendment. While I understand why Deputies submit requests for reports by way of amendments, I have made the point previously, and will make it again now, that including commitments to produce reports in primary legislation, particularly legislation which is already as complex as the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, is not good practice for us.

I will not be accepting the amendment but I will explain the provisions to which it refers. The actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund published in March 2023 was a very detailed and comprehensive report, with a wide range of scenarios examined and fully costed. One of its findings was that the fund will experience significant long-term sustainability challenges. This is mainly driven by the challenges Ireland will face in relation to demographics, particularly the ageing of our population. The need to take action now has also been highlighted by the ESRI and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC. It is in this context that the Government agreed to a gradual incremental increase in all PRSI rates, including employee, employer and the self-employed from 2024 to 2028. However, in response to cost pressures facing small-and medium-sized businesses, the Government agreed in May to a range of measures to reduce costs for such businesses. This included the increase of the employer PRSI threshold from €441 per week to €496 per week from 1 October. Furthermore, this Bill includes a provision for a further increase in the employer PRSI threshold to €527 per week, effective from January 2025 in parallel to the increase to the national minimum wage in 2025. These measures benefit employers with full-time employees earning the national minimum wage by ensuring the employer is liable for the lower rate of PRSI, currently at 8.9%, rather than the higher rate of 11.15%. This represents a saving of €616 per annum because the limits have been increased. I am satisfied that the approach decided by the Government in relation to PRSI over the next number of years achieves a fair balance between addressing the long-term sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund without unduly impinging on the incomes of workers and the costs of doing business in Ireland. Therefore I am not accepting this amendment to prepare a report on this concept of a tapered PRSI credit on employer PRSI at this stage.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Report on introducing a pay-related carers benefit payment

4. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing a pay-related carers benefit payment for those people who have to give up work to care for someone. This would ensure that a carer does not see their income fall off a cliff edge and that they see their income protected and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 1 month of the passing of this Act”.

Amendment No. 3 calls for a report on the proposed changes to carer's allowance means test thresholds from 1 January 2025 and provides that the Minister "shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing the changes to the income disregards from 1 January 2025 as opposed to July 2025". Amendment No. 4 calls for a report on abolishing the means test for carer's allowance. It provides that the Minister "shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on abolishing the means test for carers allowance" and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within one month of the passing of this Act. I want to focus on the issue of the delay up to July 2025. We talked about this previously and I asked whether it was a political or a technical decision to delay until July 2025. I still believe that this is a political decision because it is technically possible to do this in January. For this reason, I will be pressing amendment No. 3.

I propose to speak to the three amendments together. I make the same point that I would rather not put requests for reports into legislation. However, I will definitely do one of them if that is all right. I will explain. I recently signed the commencement order confirming that the new jobseeker's pay-related benefit scheme will be available from 31 March. The priority is to launch the scheme and the Government has been clear that this experience should be used to inform future decisions regarding pay-related schemes. At the time I brought the legislation through, I mentioned that maternity-related benefit would be one of the first things I would be looking at. It follows that the continued extension of a pay-related-benefit approach to other schemes such as carer's benefit will need detailed analysis, including impacts on PRSI rates. I do not think that this would be possible within a month because these are the same officials who will need to do the carer's benefit for the self-employed and a plethora of other stuff as Deputies can well imagine with all the different payments that will be going out in the coming months. However, I will ensure that a report is completed within six months if that is okay.

On the issue of bringing forward increases in the carer's allowance means-test threshold, I make the point that all budget measures have been given specific dates to enable their implementation from a process and a systems perspective and in light of the available 2025 budget envelope. Adjusting means-test thresholds is more complicated than increasing the payment rates as it requires individual claim reviews and adjustment of claims in payment. For that reason, changes to means-test thresholds announced on budget day usually take place mid-year as was the case this year when the weekly income disregard for carer's allowance increased in July.

Individual claim reviews and subsequent adjustments of claims in payment where necessary will require a lead-in time. The earlier implementation date proposed by the amendment would be of no benefit to the majority of recipients, some 96% of whom are solely reliant on the carer's allowance payment as a source of income. Therefore, I do not think that a report is necessary at this time.

On abolishing the carer's allowance means test, I have established an interdepartmental working group tasked with looking at means-tested payments to family carers, which include the carer's allowance payment. The group will report its findings to me by the end of this year. Given that this work is already under way, I do not see the need for a second report on this area. However, I will continue to keep the range of supports available to carers under review.

When we are talking about removing the means test, a conservative estimate is an additional cost of €600 million per annum based on the current claim numbers. However, based on the CSO figures, it would be considerably more because many more people have indicated they are carers. Taking account of the potential inflow into the scheme, this additional cost could increase to an upper limit of €2 billion per year, which would be considerable. The job of social protection is to support people and give them an income to support them. I cannot pay carers for the work they do. We all recognise their huge work. That is why I decided to set up an interdepartmental committee between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Protection to figure out the savings that can be made for the Department of Health when people do not have to go into nursing homes, and we want them to stay in their own homes. I think some work can be done on that.

I was the first Minister in 14 years to increase the carer's disregard. Since my appointment as Minister for Social Protection, I have nearly doubled the income disregard for carer's allowance, which has gone from €332.50 and next July will reach €625 for a single carer and for a couple from €665 up to €1,250. For a couple, one of whom is a carer, they can earn €65,000 a year and still receive the full carer's allowance. Because of the sliding scale - the more people earn the less they get - a couple can earn €90,000 a year and still get some assistance. I know of cases where people have to give up work and they are finding it difficult. It is also a recognition that the contribution they are making is not easy.

We are on the journey here. We have come some way. The carers' organisations have welcomed the changes in the budget but there is another bit to do, so we will keep at it. At the request of carers and their representative organisations, I also increased the capital disregard, meaning that a carer with a spouse or partner can now have capital of up to €100,000. The Government is aware of the key role carers play in society and will continue to keep the range of supports available to carers under review in order to provide support and recognition for carers.

-----a couple where one person starts to earn overtime and then the carer loses all entitlements. If the Minister could indicate that the interdepartmental group will look at those types of cases where all entitlements are lost by dint of the earning of overtime, that would provide some comfort. Probably just a small number of people are affected by that but they are there nonetheless.

I have no problem asking the interdepartmental group. I understand what the Deputy is saying there. Overtime is not basic income; it is extra income. If we go into the means-test space, we just look at household income. I will ask the group to look at that. I am not telling the Deputy that he will get the answer he wants, but we will certainly look at it.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“Report on introducing the proposed changes to carers allowance means test thresholds from 1 January 2025

4. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing the changes to the income disregards from 1 January 2025 as opposed to July 2025.”.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, after line 25, to insert the following:

“Maternity benefit – members of the Houses of the Oireachtas

5. The Minister shall, within 3 weeks of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both

Houses of the Oireachtas on the payment of maternity benefit to public office holders

who are members of either such House and who cease to be such a member in the period

during which maternity benefit is normally payable to employed contributors under the

Principal Act.”.

Based on the Minister's previous utterances, I anticipate that she will not accept the amendment on the basis that it calls for a report and she is not of a mind to accept any amendment to this legislation that calls for a report. However, I want to take a stand, if you will, for colleagues who find themselves in a position where if they lose their seats during their maternity leave, they could find themselves in invidious positions due to the loss of income.

PRSI class K is the stamp paid by Members of the Oireachtas, Members of the European Parliament and members of the Judiciary and it does not entitle them to any social insurance benefits. The Minister will be aware it was brought in during the financial crisis as a de facto pay cut for officeholders, which, unlike other financial measures in the public interest, FEMPI, has not been reversed. There is an anomaly between elected representatives since 2017 when the Minister for Social Protection signed SI 671 of 2016, which moved local authority members onto class S PRSI. This entitles them to self-employed social insurance benefits, which include State maternity benefit. The rationale given in numerous parliamentary replies is that this was done on the basis that councillors did not have access to an occupational pension under class K, while Members of the Oireachtas do. This was welcome. It was done by the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar. However, no consideration seems to have been given to addressing the State maternity benefit gap for any other class K payer, such as Members of Oireachtas or Members of the European Parliament if they cease to be officeholders during a 26-week period following the birth of their child. I contend that it is a major oversight. I am seeking to have it addressed in the only way I know how and that is by seeking a report, because I was told that my amendment No. 5, which makes a specific recommendation, was ruled out of order. I understand that. It was by dint of it imposing a charge on the Exchequer.

I absolutely understand the point the Deputy is making. I have had this debate in the Seanad a number of times. The best solution I could find was for them to come forward with a proposal on an all-party basis via a Private Member's Bill and I am still waiting for it. If there is all-party agreement on it, I will be happy to take it, but there will have to be all-party agreement and no dissenters. Everyone will have to be on one page.

Class K is currently the PRSI that we, as public representatives, pay. We cannot even get our teeth polished with it and that is the truth. There is no maternity benefit. We get nothing. It was brought in as an austerity measure and never rolled back. Someone will have to decide to do that.

I am just saying it as it is. I have sympathy for Oireachtas Members, especially those who lost their seats during the Covid-19 pandemic because they could not take up employment. Things were closed down. They had no income. I grant that there is a termination payment when Members leave these Houses.

Having said that, I take the Deputy's point on maternity leave. We are bringing forward legislation to ensure Oireachtas Members can take maternity leave, but at the moment, they will not be paid for it. Members will be paid, but if they are no longer Members and they are still pregnant they will not get maternity benefit. That is the way it is. I will leave it there.

Perhaps it falls to those of us who are departing to raise without fear a concern regarding the inequities of the social welfare code as they apply to Members of the Oireachtas. Deputy Sherlock has done so quite eloquently and I agree with him. I heard the Minister's response and her requirement for the cover of all parties coming together to say this is not a tenable situation.

It is one thing for the Minister to say she will change it if we all say it should be changed collectively and unanimously. However, it is another for her to say whether she has received legal advice that the charge levied on Members who pay class K PRSI is legal. That goes to the heart of the matter. There is no sign of the unanimity required in the House to convince the Minister she should progress, but I do not think any Member of the House or anyone else who pays class K PRSI has resorted to the courts because that is an expensive racket. However, it raises the question as to whether the Minister has received legal advice in her Department to say that the FEMPI legislation which introduced these changes is legal. Of course, no Minister going back to the time of the FEMPI legislation can knowingly introduce legislation that is not based in law, but I wonder whether she has sought legal advice since on whether that is the case. It levies a PRSI charge on workers who have no recourse thereafter to the cover provided by PRSI generally.

The PRSI system is riddled with inequities. I will raise another by way of further example. People who are self-employed pay a lower rate of PRSI but have virtually no entitlements as a result. For example, the man with a van who works for himself and employs someone else pays a PRSI contribution for his employee, which gives the employee the full range of benefits an employee should have and I agree with that. However, we should extend entitlements to self-employed people. We have made progress to be fair on some of the entitlements they now get, including in this budget an entitlement to carer's benefit, but the ones that still elude them are unemployment and illness benefit. Self-employed people fall off ladders. They have crashes going to work and are out of work. They have the same accidents everyone else has, but because they are self-employed, they have no cover from their PRSI contributions, although I acknowledge they are at a lower rate. That is an inequity that we should be equally concerned about. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, especially in this budget by extending an entitlement to carer's benefit. It is an acknowledgement that self-employed people have elderly relatives and children with disabilities who need care and it is only right and proper that their circumstances should be acknowledged by making them eligible for carer's benefit. However, the one remaining link in that chain that needs to be acknowledged is a right to illness benefit and unemployment benefit.

When considering the range of inequities and inequalities in the PRSI system, will the Minister view this as an equally important measure in forging the last link in the chain for self-employed people? She could at least give them the option of paying a self-employed PRSI stamp at the same rate as their employees. They are contributing to the greater good in the economy, yet their current rate of PRSI is financially lower than their employees', so let us at least give them the opportunity to pay the higher rate and thereby extend the range of benefits to them or find some middle ground. This is a meritorious consideration, as is the question of class K PRSI contributions.

I welcome the improvements in the budget as regards PRSI for self-employed persons, although we are starting from a low base. When the crash came, employees were rightly able to get supports. They had paid in, as had their employers. However, a self-employed person with a van – a plasterer, welder, fitter, block layer or whatever – got nothing. While I accept that a lower rate has been introduced in recent budgets and self-employed people are getting some benefits, perhaps they should be given the option of paying the same level of PRSI for themselves as they do for their one, ten or 20 employees so that they can avail of supports. Anything can happen and it might have nothing to do with them. Their spouses or someone else in the family could get seriously injured. They could get seriously injured themselves. They could have an accident in their only vehicle. There are all sorts of unforeseen circumstances. Self-employed people are the country’s enablers. We need them to build our houses and for the wider economy. We need to be fair to them. It should not be up to Deputies Creed and Sherlock, who are leaving the House. All of us, including the Minister, should put our shoulders to the wheel to ensure that people who serve in the Houses and pay class K PRSI get the benefits to which they are entitled.

I thank the Deputies for raising those points. A group of current and former Members have brought a High Court action seeking to have class K contributions payable as public officeholders declared unconstitutional. The matter is subject to legal proceedings, so maybe I had better say no more. I do not want to-----

Yes.

The benefits available to the self-employed have been expanded considerably over the years. They get maternity benefit, paternity benefit, parent’s benefit, treatment benefit, the contributory pension, jobseekers’ benefit for the self-employed, the invalidity pension and the partial capacity benefit. They do not get illness benefit. That can be considered, but are people willing to increase their PRSI contributions to get it? They get quite a lot of benefits currently. It would be fair to say that the next Minister for Social Protection can consider these matters.

I am conscious of the time and that other colleagues have tabled amendments, so I will be brief and speak specifically to my amendment. Where people lose office or cease to be Members, they can find themselves in the invidious position of having no payments due to them. Notwithstanding High Court actions or otherwise, the question also arises as to whether the Minister can, by statutory instrument or other secondary legislation, bring about a change to this policy to ensure that we do not have the charge of discrimination levelled against us within these Houses. That is a question for the Minister.

It would be a mark of fairness if something could be done. Notwithstanding the respect I have for the Minister before us, to suggest that she needs to get all-party agreement to an all-party proposal undermines her authority and her mandate in government to make decisions as Minister. I say this respectfully. Speaking on behalf of my party, if the Minister wants to pursue such a measure and has the mandate and numbers to do it, she will not find any opposition from this part of the House.

It is not my duty to reply, but I can imagine the headlines if it did not receive all-party support.

Will the Minister confirm whether self-employed people will have access to carer’s benefit as a result of this budget?

It will help some people’s situations.

My point remains the same. Deputy Sherlock knows well enough that it is a case of all for one and one for all on this matter.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“Report on extending parent’s leave and benefit

8. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on extending the full duration of parent’s leave and benefit by 4 weeks and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 1 month of the passing of this Act.”.:

I thank the Deputy for tabling this amendment. Regarding extending parent’s leave and benefit, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has responsibility for parent’s leave policy and I have responsibility for the associated benefit payment. Parent’s leave and benefit are available to eligible parents within the first two years following the birth or adoption of a child. An extension to parent’s leave and benefit by two weeks to nine weeks per parent was introduced from 1 August 2024. To extend parent’s benefit by a further four weeks would cost an estimated €60 million in a full year. This estimate is based on current recipients and the 2025 rates of payment. However, it does not include additional costs, for example, agency cover in the public service, which would be a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

I cannot ask the officials to conduct a report on an area where I do not have policy responsibility.

Regarding the introduction of a parental bereavement leave and benefit scheme, it would be acknowledged by all in the House that a stillbirth is a tragedy and a profound loss to the family. The Government recognises the need to support parents who find themselves in such circumstances. It is important that people know that there is already support available through the maternity and paternity benefit schemes to parents who experience a stillbirth. Féileacáin was happy that we changed the legislation so that parents were able to publicly register at the General Register Office the loss of children when they previously could not.

I recently brought forward legislation which changes the definition of a stillbirth to include a pregnancy loss that occurs after the 23rd week of pregnancy or where the birth weight is at least 400 g. These changes will apply to the Civil Registration Acts and to the maternity and paternity benefit provisions and took effect from 16 September 2024. Following a stillbirth, a mother is entitled to her full maternity leave and benefit as if she had a baby, which had arrived safely and thrived. If the loss occurs after the 23rd week of pregnancy or where the birth weight is at least 400 g they will be able to get the full maternity leave and benefit. The payment is for 26 weeks in the case of maternity benefit and for two weeks in the case of paternity benefit. Assuming all other qualifying conditions are met, both are payable in the case of a stillbirth any time after the 23rd week of pregnancy, that is, from the beginning of the 24th week or where the birth weight is at least 400 g. I do not think there is any need to do another report on this issue. What I did in the budget was increase the payment for these paternity and maternity benefits by €15 per week. That is especially to encourage more people to take up paternity benefit. There are not as many taking it up as we would like. We felt if I increased the payment that it might be more attractive to more people.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“Report on introducing a parental bereavement leave and benefit scheme 8.

8. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on introducing a parental bereavement leave and benefit scheme to those parents who experience a stillbirth, set at the weekly rate in line with current maternity and paternity rates for a period of 2 weeks.”.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, betwen lines 9 and 10 to insert the following:

“(2) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the cost of extending the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the working family payment.”.

We discussed this already. It was also discussed with the Minister's officials last week. When I asked a particular question, they stated that a specific report was being worked through. I was amazed by what they said, which was that it was generally felt that giving the fuel allowance to people in receipt of the working family payment could be a disincentive to looking for extra overtime, longer hours or promotion. I do not think that should come into it, because workers have a right to determine what hours they work. They should get the fuel allowance on the basis of what they are working at the moment and their basic pay. We know the costs of energy have gone up an awful lot. We have extended it to carers, which I agree with. It should also be extended to the working poor who are in receipt of the working family payment.

The time permitted for this debate having expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 15 October: "That in respect of each of the sections not disposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, Schedules 1 and 2, and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed."