Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In the first instance, I like the strawman approach. I have stolen the IKEA metaphor on a number of occasions. It is a good way to understand the issue. It certainly helps people structure their thoughts and gives us something to respond to, or that is how I find it. I like it as an approach, as long as it is a strawman and is not an instance of false consultation. We have seen with auto-enrolment that some people who appeared before the committee were disappointed with how far it had deviated from the strawman. That shows us that the strawman is not considered to be the finished item within the Department. I like it as an approach as it helps me to set down my own thinking and gives me something to respond to.

We have spoken a good deal about the period of six months versus nine months. I know there are two issues at play here. There is a kind of contributory principle whereby we pay in PRSI and we can expect to get something back out of it. Then there is this idea of income replacement and the short-term income shock. In that context, has there been any consideration of making those two things meet and looking at a graduated approach, whereby one might spend three months on €450, a further three months on €300 and for the payment to then taper off? As Deputy O Cuív identified, it is the cliff edge that is a problem for people in many cases. It might be a way of offsetting overall costs while still preserving the length. Has that been looked at in any detail or costed?

I am sure I read it in the documentation but could the witnesses translate the €450 cap to gross income? What is the point at which we max out that cap? I know we are not talking about a six-figure salary by the time we hit the €450 cap; it is much lower than that. I think it is probably appropriate. I do not think we should be talking about income replacement rates of 60% or whatever it is to somebody who is on €250,000. It would not be reasonable for the Exchequer to do that.

The elephant in the room is really around PRSI. Mention was made of the actuarial report. We dealt with the report from the Commission on Pensions, which was going to have fairly significant PRSI implications. Auto-enrolment will have PRSI implications. This measure will have PRSI implications as well. While it honours the contributory principle, we would be asking people to pay a higher rate of PRSI. While there is a benefit to be had here, we will reach a limit to what people are prepared to stomach in terms of PRSI contributions. I would welcome some sort of indication. At one point, figures were given indicating that a 0.1% increase in class A contributions would yield €190 million. What level of a PRSI contribution increase would be needed to fund something close to the strawman we have in front of us?