Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea made a valid argument, which I support. For the vast majority of people, who will now be liable under this payment, the S class payment will be of no use to them anyway. One is talking about a very small cohort of people for whom the S stamp will be of value in the future. Many may end up being entitled to a non-contributory pension if there is such a thing in the future or some other form of top-up payment to bring them up to that minimum threshold.

Currently, a large cohort of people would fall under that category but over time, because of the introduction of the S stamp in 1988 or 1989, fewer people will fall into it. For one reason or another, people have fallen out of the system. Traditionally, it would have been women but thankfully a previous Government comprising Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left dealt with that issue. It will, however, be a problem for a very small cohort of people in the future. Surely, the cost involved to the Exchequer would be minimal. At least people would feel they were getting something in return for making the extra PRSI contributions.

Another issue I wish to raise concerns trying to bring additional moneys into the fund. I have a suggestion for the Minister in this regard. There is a cohort of people who would like to put money into the fund but for whom there is no mechanism to do so. It would benefit the economy in the long term. We all accept that every entrepreneur is a potential employer. We are trying to encourage entrepreneurs and if we are to get this economy back on track, it will only happen through the indigenous economy with our own people creating jobs for themselves in the first instance and then creating additional jobs in the future. The projections are that the number of jobs from foreign direct investment will fall off, so we need to support and encourage our own entrepreneurs.

The reality is that risk does not always end in reward. Many people who are out of work were very good employers during the boom and paid tax and PRSI for their employees who were able to draw on it when the employers went to the wall but because the employers were self-employed, they could not draw on all the taxes and PRSI they paid. Many of them ended up in serious financial difficulties as a result of not being able to draw any entitlements or benefits and ended up worse off than the employees they had employed.

The UK has dealt with this issue over the past number of years by allowing self-employed people in certain circumstances to make PRSI contributions which would allow them access to social insurance benefits if they become unemployed. Serious consideration should be given to this, especially given the circumstances which we are in and given that the number of people who fall into that category is quite small. Additional conditions could be included but if someone is prepared to set up his or her own business, he or she should be allowed to make a voluntary PRSI contribution and if that business goes to the wall, he or she should be able to access some benefit as a result of the PRSI contribution he or she has made. It provides that person with a safety net if he or she becomes sick or if the business goes to the wall. If we are serious about trying to encourage entrepreneurs to set up businesses in this country and trying to support that entrepreneurial spirit, we need to provide some sort of basic social security safety net for them. If the UK has done it, I cannot see why a similar system could not be introduced here to encourage people to make a voluntary contribution on which they could rely in the medium term if they fall on hard times. It would be a clear message to the self-employed that we want them to get back into the system, start paying tax and PRSI and start employing people and that we will provide them with that safety net in the medium term should something happen. People getting some sort of social welfare payment are afraid they will lose it and end up back at square one. We do not want to see that happening.

Sadly, many of our best entrepreneurs are leaving this country because they do not believe they have the opportunity here to create the new businesses which will be the big employers of the future and they are making their future somewhere else rather than in this country. This would set down a clear marker and would help to provide a safety net.

I refer to the issue of civil partnerships. Provision is being made in this legislation to tidy up some of that area. Currently, a spouse can have his or her PRSI contributions recalculated to divide the contributions between the couple where both are involved in the business. Will that continue on foot of the amendment to section 5? Will that provision now apply to civil partnerships? Will it apply retrospectively to civil partnerships?

If two people have been cohabiting for a number of years, can they get their PRSI retrospectively recalculated now? That would make a big difference to their eligibility for a pension at a future stage.

See this speech in context