Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to contribute to this part of the debate by supporting what Deputy Naughten has said. When we previously discussed the PRSI contributions of the self-employed, we mentioned that if they were to be the equivalent of the contributions of other employees, they would have to be 14% or 15%. Has any further progress been made in setting up a kind of scheme that would have the effect suggested by Deputy Naughten? I will leave it at that because we have teased this out at the joint committee and elsewhere.

I suggest that steps need to be taken with regard to employers. Some of them made contributions in the past when they were employees. When they changed their status, they were unable to continue making contributions at the same level. As a result, they lost their ability to be able to claim some type of protection. Some of them have ended up claiming supplementary welfare allowance. In some ways, it is a contradiction in terms that they are entitled to that. Others cannot make such a claim because the assets of their businesses need to have been ended in total and wrapped up neatly in order for them to be able to avail of any type of payment. Basically, the employer has to be destitute in these circumstances.

I would like to refer briefly to amendment No. 1 in my name. I am not asking the Minister to respond on this. The proposal was ruled out for some bizarre reason, because it is a cost on the people, not the Exchequer. This bizarre rule means that Opposition Deputies cannot make positive proposals to the Department. If amendments have a cost to the Exchequer, in most cases they are ruled out. This proposal involves trying to recover for the Department the moneys it has paid out in respect of somebody who has taken an unfair dismissals case. It is estimated that approximately €3 million could be recovered in this way if the recovery of such payments were allowed. I refer to payments made by the Department to people after they were dismissed, but before the Employment Appeals Tribunal found they were unfairly dismissed. I am not complaining about the making of such payments. I am not saying the person should have to pay those moneys back. I am saying the employer should be required to return the money in question to the Department. A mechanism that would achieve that should be considered. It is not a huge amount of money, but it would be better for it to be in the Department's coffers than in the hands of an employer who unfairly dismissed an employee.

See this speech in context