Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps it falls to those of us who are departing to raise without fear a concern regarding the inequities of the social welfare code as they apply to Members of the Oireachtas. Deputy Sherlock has done so quite eloquently and I agree with him. I heard the Minister's response and her requirement for the cover of all parties coming together to say this is not a tenable situation.

It is one thing for the Minister to say she will change it if we all say it should be changed collectively and unanimously. However, it is another for her to say whether she has received legal advice that the charge levied on Members who pay class K PRSI is legal. That goes to the heart of the matter. There is no sign of the unanimity required in the House to convince the Minister she should progress, but I do not think any Member of the House or anyone else who pays class K PRSI has resorted to the courts because that is an expensive racket. However, it raises the question as to whether the Minister has received legal advice in her Department to say that the FEMPI legislation which introduced these changes is legal. Of course, no Minister going back to the time of the FEMPI legislation can knowingly introduce legislation that is not based in law, but I wonder whether she has sought legal advice since on whether that is the case. It levies a PRSI charge on workers who have no recourse thereafter to the cover provided by PRSI generally.

The PRSI system is riddled with inequities. I will raise another by way of further example. People who are self-employed pay a lower rate of PRSI but have virtually no entitlements as a result. For example, the man with a van who works for himself and employs someone else pays a PRSI contribution for his employee, which gives the employee the full range of benefits an employee should have and I agree with that. However, we should extend entitlements to self-employed people. We have made progress to be fair on some of the entitlements they now get, including in this budget an entitlement to carer's benefit, but the ones that still elude them are unemployment and illness benefit. Self-employed people fall off ladders. They have crashes going to work and are out of work. They have the same accidents everyone else has, but because they are self-employed, they have no cover from their PRSI contributions, although I acknowledge they are at a lower rate. That is an inequity that we should be equally concerned about. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, especially in this budget by extending an entitlement to carer's benefit. It is an acknowledgement that self-employed people have elderly relatives and children with disabilities who need care and it is only right and proper that their circumstances should be acknowledged by making them eligible for carer's benefit. However, the one remaining link in that chain that needs to be acknowledged is a right to illness benefit and unemployment benefit.

When considering the range of inequities and inequalities in the PRSI system, will the Minister view this as an equally important measure in forging the last link in the chain for self-employed people? She could at least give them the option of paying a self-employed PRSI stamp at the same rate as their employees. They are contributing to the greater good in the economy, yet their current rate of PRSI is financially lower than their employees', so let us at least give them the opportunity to pay the higher rate and thereby extend the range of benefits to them or find some middle ground. This is a meritorious consideration, as is the question of class K PRSI contributions.

See this speech in context