Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to contribute to this social welfare Bill. I welcome the introduction of a pay-related jobseeker's benefit, which is long overdue. However, the Bill missed the opportunity to also address the extremely low rate of illness benefit. It is my understanding that under the new system, those who lose their job will now be entitled to a maximum rate of €450 or 60% of their income per week. This is a necessary increase and will soften the income shock when a person loses his or her employment. It makes sense that the benefit people receive corresponds with the income they were receiving, to allow them to adjust and continue to make payments until an alternative income is arranged. As has been said by other Members, in order to get the full €450, one has to have been earning €750 a week. Therefore, the measure will not impact on very many workers. People on lower incomes will get much lower rates and it will be very difficult for them to survive as well.

I do not think this is a new concept either, as has been suggested. When I was a child in 1980 my own mother was made redundant and she received pay-related social insurance at that time. The redundancy was related to her previous income. The Government is taking about this as being something new but I do not believe it is. It is a case of stepping back to the future. As far as I am aware, what is proposed now will not even be as good as was available then. Who is to say that when the next inevitable income shock happens, that this will not be the first benefit to be cut? The history of every government in this State is that workers are the first to pay and to lose out when things turn bad. That is true regardless of who has been in government.

The fact that the maximum payment for those seeking illness benefit is €232 a week is outrageous. Over the years, I have encountered many constituents who have had to take time off work due to illness and have struggled to make ends meet, to make mortgage payments and loan repayments, which were calculated on their income and are impossible for many to keep up on less than €250 a week. This does not even include food costs, energy costs and the medical bills that many people face when they become ill. Most people do not expect to fall ill and so when it happens, it is a terrible personal and financial shock. It is often a very stressful period in people's lives and they should be supported not penalised. Unfortunately, this is not an issue that people are aware of until it happens to them and they realise just how desperately low the rate of illness benefit is.

I was contacted by one constituent, a single mother who became unwell, who had never heard of illness benefit until she was unfit to work. She was paying a mortgage of more than €900 a month and she was expected to pay that as well as household and medical bills and the cost of looking after her children while receiving just over €200 a week. She said she had not had to depend on the State for a handout until then, at 49 years of age. She did not even know how little the illness payment was until that point. Having worked her entire life in various jobs as an employee and as a self-employed person, she wonders what was the point of her paying tax.

That woman is just one of many constituents who have come to me with the same problem, including cancer patients and single parents, as well as partners of those too unwell to look after themselves who were seeking carer's benefit. Unfortunately, like illness benefit, carer's benefit is also set at an extremely low rate. Carer's benefit is not a pay-related benefit scheme and those caring for their sick partners are only entitled to a set payment of €249 a week. It is heartbreaking to see people in this situation, struggling to make ends meet during an already extremely stressful and frightening period in their lives. I am disappointed that the Minister has continuously failed to recognise this and to adjust illness benefit and carer's benefit to ensure that people are protected at such vulnerable times in their lives. I acknowledge what the Minister said in her opening statement, which is that it was not possible to modify all these schemes at the one time, but I wonder how long it will be before any more scheme benefits will be added. I imagine it will be quite some time.

People receiving illness benefit and carer's benefit have paid their PRSI and this should protect them when they are in need. However, this is, sadly, not the case. The Government must review the PRSI rates in this country. At the moment Irish workers and businesses pay the least into social insurance of any country in the EU, although when USC is counted in for workers, it probably brings our rates up. Employer contributions are the fifth lowest in the EU and employee contributions are the second lowest. The Government must address this and it must also ensure that workers are properly protected when they lose their job, become ill or have to care for a loved one.

Our rates are very often compared here but we never examine the link between poor rates and poor entitlements. Workers are the backbone of our economy and we should protect and support them. Too many businesses believe in the fallacy that they can get on without their workers. What makes a business stand out from the crowd is a good product but also the service people receive when they use the business. Unfortunately, there is not a recognition from many business owners that most of their customers are in the same situation as their employees. If their employees benefit from increases in PRSI rates, so will their customers, which will mean they will have more disposable income to spend as well. While it might be more difficult to see, there is also an onward benefit that will hopefully come back around to benefit small businesses. That must always be kept in mind as well.

When we talk about small businesses, we should really call them micro-enterprises. In Ireland, a small business is classified as one with up to 250 employees. I do not think anyone here would classify a company employing 250 people as a small business. What most of us talk about in the context of small businesses is the local shop, restaurant, or garage that might have up to ten employees, which in government-speak are micro-businesses. When the Government speaks about micro-enterprises it is implied that this is some dynamic new business that is operating in fast-paced circles. We must use the right terminology so that the right policies can be directed in the right places as well. I do not think the needs of a business employing up to ten or 15 people are the same as a business employing up to 250 people. We need to tailor our measures and look at that as well.

See this speech in context