Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members are required to participate in the meeting remotely from within the Leinster House precincts only. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. I welcome the Aire, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and her officials. I will bring some matters to the attention of members. Any member acting in substitution for a member of the committee should formally notify the clerk if she or he has not already done so. Divisions will be taken as they arise. Members must attend in person in the committee meeting room for divisions, although they may attend the meeting generally remotely. Members attending this meeting in accordance with Standing Order 106(3) should be aware, pursuant to that Standing Order, that they may move amendments but cannot participate in voting on those amendments.

I invite the Minister to make her opening statement.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for facilitating the hearing of Committee Stage of the Bill. I thank members for attending.

The Bill provides the legislative basis for a new jobseeker’s pay-related benefit scheme and a range of PRSI increases agreed by the Government, along with a number of miscellaneous amendments. The enactment of this Bill before the summer recess is a priority for me. There has been very constructive engagement with the committee on the Bill over the past year or so, including pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee's feedback on the design of the new jobseeker’s pay-related benefit scheme is reflected in the scheme set out in this Bill. In particular, the extension of the payment to nine months, the increase in the minimum payment, and the tapering of the payment all arose from discussions at the committee.

The Bill sets out the legislative framework for the new scheme. It also contains regulation-making powers that will allow the full details of aspects of the scheme to be developed in regulations. I was pleased to hear on Second Stage that there is broad agreement that the introduction of a jobseeker’s pay-related benefit will be a very positive step for Ireland. It will be a major reform of our social welfare support that is about supporting workers who lose their employment and ensuring they do not suffer a cliff-edge drop in income. Through my own experiences, I have seen the distress this sudden withdrawal of income can cause.

Under this scheme, the weekly rate of payment for people who have at least five years' paid PRSI contributions will be set at 60% of previous gross earnings, subject to a maximum of €450, for the first three months. This is almost double the current standard jobseeker’s rate. After that, the rate will reduce to 55% of earnings, subject to a maximum of €375, for the following three months.

A further three months will be paid at the rate of 50% up to a maximum of €300. For persons who have between two and five years' paid contributions, the rate will be set at 50% of previous gross earnings, subject to a maximum of €300 per week for up to six months. This is a major reform and will bring us in line with our European neighbours where pay-related benefits are the norm. The Department is working on the necessary arrangements to introduce the scheme towards the end of this year.

The Bill also provides for modest increases in PRSI over the next five years. A range of options were put forward in the actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund. The Government has decided it is better to address this issue early by way of a small change rather than deferring the problem until more drastic action would be required. These increases will support the retention of the State pension age at 66 years, help address the long-term sustainability challenges facing the Social Insurance Fund and provide for the new jobseeker’s pay-related benefit. The amendment I am bringing forward is to increase the employer PRSI threshold from €441 to €496 per week in line with the changes in the national minimum wage. This will take effect from 1 October 2024. This change will support small- to medium-sized employers with employees working full time on the national minimum wage by making the employer liable at the lower rate of PRSI in respect of those employees.

I look forward to the debate.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. We will move to the Bill itself.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

“Amendment of section 13 of Principal Act

4. Section 13(2)(d) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subparagraph (i), by the substitution of “€496” for “€441”, and

(b) in subparagraph (ii), by the substitution of “€496” for “€441”.”.

Section 4 amends section 21(1) of the principal Act by substituting the new minimum and annual self-employment payment of €650 for the old rate of €500 effective from 1 October. It also substitutes "Self-employment contributions shall be paid by self-employed contributors in accordance with the following provisions" with "Subject to section 38BA, self-employment contributions shall be paid by self-employed contributors in accordance with the following provisions".

The amendment provides for an increase in the employer PRSI threshold from €441 to €496 per week with effect from 1 October. This increase is one of a range of measures agreed by Government to reduce costs for small- and medium-sized businesses. Section 13 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 sets our rates of PRSI contributions for employees and for employers. There are two rates of employer contribution, namely, a lower rate of 8.8% on employee gross earnings up to and including €441 per week and a rate of 11.05% on all employee earnings once they exceed €441 per week. This change will ensure employers with employees working full time on the national minimum wage will not be required to pay the higher rate of PRSI and will instead pay the lower rate.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I repeat the position we have, which is that we agree with pay-related jobseeker's allowance. We welcome that the Government listened with regard to the work my colleague, Deputy Kerrane, did on the straw man, the consultation on that and also the nine months. That was an important change. We do not agree with PRSI increases on employees at this juncture in the cost-of-living crisis. I articulated quite clearly the position we have on the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund. Its sustainability can be achieved by other means and I outlined that in some detail in my Second Stage speech. It had been my intention to oppose section 3, but it just caught me a bit quickly there. Is it possible do so now? It is not. Maybe our opposition can be recorded to section 3, which contained the PRSI increases.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the record, but we have moved past that section.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are moving too fast for me, Chair.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very efficient.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There you go. We will be opposing that and we oppose the legislation for that reason. There are other means, including the increases on employer PRSI on incomes over €100,000 we have outlined, that can achieve the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund. At this juncture, with the cost-of-living crisis that is there and the pressures on workers, it is not the time for increases in employees' PRSI.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the amendment, was there no temptation to go to a clean €500? It would be much easier for everyone to remember. Cut-off, round figures are generally easier. We always seem to be very precise, even when a little generosity would do nobody any harm.

On a more serious point, even though that is a serious point, I welcome section 3, which has been referred to. We have to know whether we are going to stick to this retirement age of 66 years. That gives us some certainty about how we are going to fund it. I know the commission also recommended that, over time, Exchequer funding would be put into pensions, but that was equal on the various methodologies, whether a person went to age 68 or 66. In fact, the PRSI changes were quite modest to keep the age of 66. If this was not in place, the campaign would continue, that seems still to be ongoing in the media, that this whole thing is unaffordable. I am somebody who will never benefit from this because I have already passed 66, but I have always taken the view that the age was vital, particularly for people working in jobs in the areas of caring, construction and those in which a lot of physical labour is involved. The more you put back the pension age, the more they will be hanging around waiting for a pension and will not be in full employment. It is fine for people who have desk jobs and who are in good health to say they can continue to an indefinite age. Therefore, I welcome this. I know it means a slight increase in what everybody pays, but the consensus across society has been that people put a huge premium on the age of 66. In fact, it has been the younger cohorts that have been more in favour of that and, when the surveys have been done, younger people have been very in favour of retaining the age of 66 and not having it pushed back from them, even though they have a long way to go yet.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I always outlined how, to keep the pension age at 66, we would have to increase PRSI. These are small incremental increases of approximately 90 cent per week for the average industrial wage. They will start in October. We are giving certainty for the next five years and I think that is fair. In five years’ time there will be a review. There are always reviews of the SIF and future governments can make decisions after that. We are doing this now, at a time when we are in full employment, which is the best time to do it. There is never a good time to increase PRSI, but these are small, incremental increases. It is important we do that in order that the SIF is sustainable into the future.

With regard to the amendment I have tabled, this is being done in line with the minimum wage increase and that is why we did not make it up to the full figure of €500. It has increased per the minimum wage increase and the threshold matches that.

This is one of a number of measures announced by the Government to reduce costs for small- and medium-sized businesses, including those arising from the increase in the national minimum wage, the introduction of auto-enrolment, which is progressing well, and statutory sick pay. We are trying to be fair here and changing this in line with the increases in the minimum wage.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy happy with that?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach is going so fast through the sections that I am losing myself. I welcome the extension back to nine months. It was originally proposed to claw some of this back by going to six months for jobseeker's benefit. I welcome the fact it has been left at nine months, but I reiterate my concern that for those who do not get employment within the nine months there is a second cliff edge, namely, that if they have a partner, the partner’s income comes into play. I know that is a debate for another day, but I want to put down the marker here that that is a cliff edge we have all come across as politicians. Not everybody gets employment, particularly people in the older cohort, who often do not get employment so easily if they become unemployed at 55 or 60 years old and so on. While not an issue for this particular Bill, that second cliff edge is an issue for the forthcoming budget. The Minister mentioned at the beginning that this legislation avoids a cliff edge for people who have reasonably substantial wages where they lose their employment, or it reduces or ameliorates it, but the second cliff edge people hit is after nine months if they have a partner who has an income in their own right. The figure of €60 and 60% after that is quite penal.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again raise a point I made on Second Stage. The Minister may have addressed it in her summing up on Second Stage but I do not think it was. I also echo what Deputy Ó Cuív has raised about the nine-month period and the other pieces. Some Opposition Deputies have made speeches making the point that there are those on lower incomes who would qualify for a much lesser pay-related amount. I think we are probably on the same page on this but I want to make sure it is on the record. The mistake Deputies are making is that they are failing to recognise that people on low incomes would still qualify for jobseeker's allowance because they would meet the income threshold. I raised this point on Second Stage, asking if there has been any examination of whether there is a narrow category of people who fall between two stools. Have we examined that just in case there is a small category of people who might be slightly above the threshold for the full jobseeker's allowance but who might be at the lower end of the pay-related jobseeker’s benefit? I do not imagine the number would be huge, but if there were such a category of people, the consequences would be considerable. We are probably broadly in the same space in relation to this, but I want it checked and examined if it has not already been.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if we have the data regarding their means. The point of this pay-related benefit is that people are better off. That is the whole purpose of it. It is not our intention to try to reduce anybody's payment. That is not the intention behind this. However, as the Deputy said, there may be some who may fall each side of the band. We can look at this as they present. I am not here to try to reduce anybody's payment. We are making exceptions for part-time workers so they will be able to remain on our jobseeker’s benefit. That is for part-time workers, seasonal workers and workers in the education sector. We are making arrangements for them to remain on jobseeker’s benefit because they are actually better off staying on it rather than going on pay-related benefit. We are trying do it in such a way that nobody is worse off. That is the intention behind it. If we have to look at something, I am happy to look at it. We will look at it in regulations as well.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be useful if the officials could provide any calculations or examples between now and Report Stage. I am very sure that it is not the intention, but we need to do our due diligence on it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might furnish the committee with that evidence if she has it.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we conclude our consideration of the Bill, do any members wish to put any final questions to the Minister or make comments? I have a question on the scheduling as well as the public interest. The Minister may not have the answer at the moment. There is now an intention to bring forward amending legislation to deal with the O'Meara case concerning John O'Meara, his family and his late partner Michelle. There is an intention to bring forward legislation to ensure that unmarried couples can get access to the widow's pension. Will the Minister indicate to the committee, either today or later in writing, an update for the timeline for the amending legislation? The committee is very anxious to try to facilitate the speedy passage of that legislation. There are quite a number of families and widows and widowers across the State who are anxious to try to get a resolution in respect of this matter. If the Minister can provide comment in her remarks that would be great. If not then the Minister might come back to the committee as soon as possible. I thank the Minister.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee members for their co-operation and their contribution to bringing the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill through Committee Stage. I look forward to finally returning it to the Dáil and moving on with it. This is important and significant legislation. Pay-related benefit will mean a huge difference to many people. I am delighted to be able to move on with it.

On the Supreme Court judgment in the O'Meara case, the committee will be pleased to hear that I brought a memo to the Government this morning. I have agreement to proceed to prepare the legislation, and when it is drafted to bring the legislation to the committee here. I just do not have the dates but I want to move it on and would like to have it done hopefully before the Dáil goes into recess. It is important.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it the Minister's intention to have it enacted before the House goes into recess?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we can, yes.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that only a small amendment is required.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is. We will put the general scheme to the committee here for pre-legislative scrutiny. I will start then to bring the legislation through the Dáil. If I can get it through before the recess well and good. It sounds straightforward but it is actually complex enough. It is on foot of the Supreme Court judgment that we are bringing it forward. We will get it to the committee as soon as we can.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe I speak on behalf of all the members here by saying that if the Minister wishes for and seeks a waiver on the pre-legislative scrutiny, the committee would be very amenable to that request in order to expedite the matter. It is a Supreme Court judgment-----

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and we do not have a lot of flexibility in relation to that. We do not want to impede the passage of that legislation.

If that request were made, the committee would look at it favourably.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. As I said, I got agreement this morning so we will move on now to get the general scheme of the Bill together. It will hopefully move fairly quickly. I can talk to my officials about the next steps and about whether the committee is happy to leave it without pre-legislative scrutiny.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be complex enough, would it not? The Minister has to draw the line somewhere.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just tricky to explain. It takes a few minutes to go through it to be honest with the Deputy.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but there will be a line drawn somewhere.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The way it has been worked out is that the definition of "qualified cohabitant" for the scheme will be broadly based on the existing definition of qualifying cohabitant contained in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. That Act was referred to in the Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, we are working along the lines of that Act in terms of-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the secretariat give us a copy of those relevant sections of the Act-----

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 2010 Act.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to which the Minister is referring.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Much of it will be based on that because that is where the definition of a cohabitant is in the legislation.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but obviously, that does not apply today to as many people as this is going to apply to. In other words, this has to become administratively possible in a fairly simple form for people who are going to qualify and administratively possible for people who are not going to qualify because, obviously, there will be quite a few people. It is that fine line that is going to cause the grief. I have no problem with the principal. It is the Supreme Court judgment. However, it is about where this falls according to this law. I would like to have a look at the law.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to provide the Deputy with a copy of the draft legislation.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put it this way; nobody has ever come to me and cited that law. I know there are going to be plenty of people coming to me on this one. That is the difference. Money is involved. There is going to be a cut-off point and there are going to be judgments involved. When we are dealing with something that is black and white, such having contributions and whatever, it is much easier. As we know from the health examples, however, when that judgment factor comes into social welfare, it does become more complex. That is why I would like to see the baseline from where we are starting. Perhaps we could get the briefing on how that law works at the moment and to whom it applies. In other words, does it apply day-to-day to a lot of people? How does that operate? We could get some sense of whether this Bill-----

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may be helpful to have a briefing from officials when the Minister has the draft available to provide the type of clarity, which is important and has been indicated by Deputy Ó Cuív. We also need to try to facilitate the expeditious enactment of it if we can. We can find a balance between both sides on it.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy for the officials to come in. When we draft the legislation, they can come in to walk and talk members through it and answer any concerns they have. I am happy to do that, absolutely.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put on the record that the committee will insofar as is possible facilitate an expeditious passage of this legislation.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one final question. Let us say a person qualifies. In the old days, if people qualified for a widow's pension, the way they lost that was if they got married. Now, presumably, they equally lose it if they become a cohabitant again. These are the kinds of blurred lines.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be going forward.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that, but I am saying that these are the kinds of blurred lines that in my view exist around the definition of what is a new cohabitant or whatever. I would be interested in those definitions. I foresee that will be a challenge when it is not something very finite. Marriage is a legal contract, so it is very definable. In this case, however, I am interested to see where the lines will be drawn and how they will be drawn in a way that will be administrable.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I had the same issues as the Deputy. In fairness to the officials, however, they have done a lot of work on this. We will hopefully be able to allay most of the concerns people will have.

We put a fair bit into it because there are a number of different scenarios. We tried to look at how we can do this.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's officials present, who have been very helpful to the committee, will engage with the clerk. There is a willingness to see whether we can move this forward.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is great. Thank you.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the committee's business in public session. I propose the committee goes into private session to consider an item of business. Is that agreed? Agreed.