Maire Devine (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach, the Minister and his colleagues in Fine Gael, who are bringing this issue before the Seanad this evening. I have shared their experiences, especially in the sad times, when there were people who have been made unemployed queuing out the door of clinics. We need to do something to help them, but I felt inadequate in regard to those who were self-employed. I could not do anything and had to watch them spiral, taking hit after hit, and losing their families, their homes, their businesses and often, tragically, a lot more than that. It is important that something has been done. I would like to outline our support for the measures proposed. It is not before time for such measures to be brought forward. They will go some way towards providing security and a safety net for the self-employed workers across the country. Similarly, I would like to make our support for the self-employed sector known. Just under 20% of employment in our economy is made up of self-employment.They drive employment and sustain local economies in every city, town and village. Entrepreneurs are risk takers who put their heads on the line to try to drive the country forward. While we recognise the importance of transnational companies and foreign direct investment in creating jobs, small and medium indigenous firms are the real drivers of local economies and should be supported and protected because they also provide the potential for the growth of Irish transnational companies.

I hope the motion will resolve the issue that arises in the provision of long-term benefits in cases of sickness or injury. We must have a wider discussion on the improvements we need to make to assist the self-employed and how the proposed extension of benefits should be funded. The Mangan report, the recommendations of which the motion proposes to implement, suggests PRSI rates for the self-employed be increased to fund the benefits that would be provided. Clarity is required on this issue because the Fine Gael Party is opposed to increasing PRSI rates for the self-employed and has consistently argued that employers need cash to pay wages and create jobs. Senator Ray Butler will probably argue the case for reducing universal social charge, USC, rates. That would be the wrong move as we need revenue for investment.

I note also that the Fine Gael Party manifesto in the previous general election did not refer to self-employed PRSI rates but instead proposed an increase in the tax credit available to the self-employed. Fine Gael seeks to reduce the PRSI rate paid by employers for their employees as a means of funding the proposed increase in the minimum wage. In this regard, I note the proposal by the Low Pay Commission to increase the minimum wage by 10 cent per hour, which is an insult.

The position of the Fianna Fáil Party does not differ significantly from that of the Fine Gael Party, which is not a surprise. Fianna Fáil refers to protecting the self-employed to achieve a measure of social equality. Somewhat different, however, is its suggestion an opt-in clause be introduced for self-employed persons in PRSI class A. This would require an additional PRSI contribution of 4% of income. How many self-employed persons would be willing to pay this additional amount? That needs to be clarified.

Sinn Féin has long called for changes to be made to allow self-employed persons access to more sustained benefits. That said, a serious conversation is required on how these changes would be paid for. PAYE workers currently pay PRSI at a rate of 4%, while their employers pay a further 10.75% on their employees' behalf. We could end up with a scenario in which PAYE workers pay significantly more than self-employed workers for the same benefits. Sinn Féin is more than happy to extend benefits to the self-employed and encourages such an extension, but the self-employed would have to make a contribution towards the cost of doing so. There is no better time to introduce this change because pay rates for the self-employed are increasing much faster than those of employees in the public and private sectors. I stress, however, that no one should be forced into joining any new system at this time. It should be accessed on an opt-in or voluntary basis. I am fully cognisant, for example, that numerous self-employed persons are members of income protection schemes and find these to be adequate to meet their needs.

Where do we go from here? It is a bit rich of Fine Gael to introduce this motion when the party has been in government for more than five years. Despite recognising the failings of the current system, the party has done nothing to address them thus far. I commend the motion, belated as it is, and hope it will be accepted.

The Minister has indicated he plans to close the gap between the self-employed and other workers. The time for planning is long past; self-employed persons need action. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are essentially in government together and, combined, the two parties have sufficient numbers to enact legislation without delay. It would not be rocket science to implement the recommendations made in the Mangan report, as provided for in the motion; therefore, why not do so? The cosy agreement in the confidence and supply arrangement includes a commitment to introduce a PRSI scheme for the self-employed and provide a supportive tax regime for entrepreneurs and the self-employed. This begs a question, however, namely, what is the point of using Private Members' time to discuss this issue when the Government and Fianna Fáil can introduce legislation to provide for it? Sinn Féin will certainly support progressive measures to help the self-employed sector. It may be the case that the motion is nothing more than a toothless public relations exercise aimed at allowing Fine Gael Senators to look good in the eyes of the business community and that nothing definitive will come of it.