Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is an absolute privilege and duty and I am delighted to second the motion as proposed by Senator Butler. It merits putting on the record that since the first day I met Senator Butler, when he and I were both elected to the Dáil in 2011, he has been talking about, pioneering and bringing forward this issue. He has run with it consistently and should be proud he is now bringing it to a legislative stage. It is a great personal achievement and is something to which all Members aspire in different ways but he is the one who has done it. He has brought significant legislation to this House, which is a great personal achievement of which he can be very proud. I wish him well and congratulate him on that, as Members should applaud any colleague who is able to do something like this and does so.

At the outset, I concur with the remarks of Senator Butler on self-employed people, based on my anecdotal evidence from clinic work and meeting people during those terrible years. One case really comes to mind clearly but before getting into specifics, I came across many self-employed people, as identified by Senator Butler, who were in that dark place and were without income. One family comes to mind and it was a wonderful pleasure to meet the dad recently and to discover things are changing for him. While he is now a directly-employed person, the tide has turned completely. I recall one case in which the business was gone, the wife - who had had work in the past - had no further work and there were three or four children, one of whom was in a third level college in Dublin. It is a real case and I will not go into it further lest the family be identified but my point is Senator Butler's observations were and are real and sadly, will be real again. It is important that when those who have the courage to try to do something on their own initiative fall, there is a cushion in place to support them. It also merits stating they already pay 4% and in a sense, the de factoposition is they pay 4% for an S stamp for which they get nothing. Lest there be any misunderstanding about it, it is not as though they are beginning from a position in which they pay nothing for nothing. The starting position is they pay a lot for nothing.

In this Private Members' motion, Senator Butler has adapted the Mangan report to a good legislative framework in which he advocates beginning with a payment rate of 4.5%, which is not a significant increase on the existing rate of 4%. Moreover, he advocates introducing graduated changes to the payment rates from then onwards, until the rate of 5.5% is reached, in order that nobody suffers too greatly too quickly in the payment end. The significant point, however, is the new situation will provide income in the event of someone losing a job. It is important that this be in place because thankfully, not everybody is disabled. Thanks be to God that only a minority go through that challenge, in which they should be supported, but it is important that there be a payment for job loss. It also is important that disability payment, illness benefit and the other normal social welfare payments be available to them and I support that strongly.

Senator Butler also made an important point in his remarks on the falling rate of USC. The rate has fallen, is falling and will continue to fall, as it is part of the programme for Government to target this reduction in the USC rate at middle and lower incomes in particular. As the rate of USC falls, there will be potential to make this payment, as it would mean almost no change other than the benefits accruing to an employer. This is the sort of message that should be sent out, lest there be a scare in respect of this proposal based on a misunderstanding that a new tax - with no outcome - is to be imposed on struggling small enterprises that they will not be in a position to pay. The ability to pay aspect will be covered by the reduction in the rate of USC, while the benefits accruing makes it a measure that is to their advantage. It will not de-incentivise but if anything, it should slightly incentivise risk-taking because no one likes to go without a safety net of some form in life. That is why the insurance industry does so well and many people make a good living in insurance because everybody has a level of fear about the future. The fact that people would be covered for sick pay, disability pay and job loss is an incentive to take a risk. One does not take the risk while intending to fall into that category, far from it, but at least in taking the risk, one then has an expectation that a safety net is in place.It would, perhaps, make it easier to look one’s children or dependants straight in the face and say one would at least have a job loss payment or the equivalent of the jobseeker’s benefit in a doomsday scenario, or get sick pay in the event of illness or the disability payment if required. It is important also that one will be able to say there will be no net increased cost because of the universal social charge.

It merits repetition that Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe not to have what is proposed. It is part of a civilised, modern society. Some 330,000 self-employed people will stand to benefit from this pioneering proposal introduced by Senator Butler. This number is expanding all the time. It allows for an important fallback position for them and it will increase risk taking. We certainly do not want people going into bleak spots, as Senator Butler stated, but we also do not want a burden on the State. By making the payment, one is ultimately providing money to provide a cushion. The State would not be put into a position in which, in the middle of a recession, it would have to provide exceptional welfare payments to many desperate people through the community welfare office, for example.

It is important to acknowledge the good work the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and others in the last Government did in this area, although it was not enough because enough could not be done.

I welcome the legislation. It is providing significant benefits although it is hoped people will not need them. I welcome the incremental introduction of the arrangement and the cushioning from the continuing fall in the universal social charge. I welcome also the fact that what is proposed brings us into line with the rest of Europe. Above all, it may be creating an incentive to be enterprising and to take a risk. It supports risk-takers. Without risk-takers, we will go nowhere. I do not have to tell the Cathaoirleach that if we do not have risk-takers in our economy, revenue will not accrue. We have to have that special type of person who takes risks. We cannot have them fall into nothingness.