Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill for discussion before the summer. I hope that we will have a chance to engage further in respect of amendments in the autumn. I see that it is planned to ensure there is space and time to allow Senators to supplement or contribute to the Bill. Issues have been raised in respect of short-term illness benefit. There are some other practical issues on which I will engage, for example, the ability to make voluntary contributions. As we know there are constraints on those who wish to make such contributions such as thresholds that must be reached. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on a few technical issues of that nature on Committee Stage.

I will speak to some of the more general concerns and questions I have. It is very important that the State offer a safety net and support for everybody who needs it at the time they most need it. I recognise that many people have moved back and forth between employment and self-employment. It should not be the case that people find themselves at a distance from the State. I refer not only to State support payments, but to associated supports in respect of activation and access to training and employment. It is also important to be clear that self-employment takes a wide variety of forms. While the kind that has been discussed at great length today is the entrepreneur who is an employer, European figures show that only 23% of self-employed people in Europe are employers. The Minister may have comparable figures for Ireland. While the small businesspeople we have discussed do exist, they comprise less than a quarter of the self-employed cohort in Europe. Perhaps the figures for Ireland could be found.

Almost as many people across Europe are vulnerable workers. We know that this is also an issue in Ireland. I sit on the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection and I have seen it. The term "vulnerable workers" refers to those classed as being particularly vulnerable to exploitation and who may not have control over the circumstances of their work or employment. In many cases such people fall into the category of what has been called bogus self-employment. I would divide this into two categories: false self-employment and forced self-employment. As the Minister will be very aware, the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection has heard very strong and striking testimony on these issues. Senator Nash, who is not here today as he is at the conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, has tabled legislation on this issue, as has Deputy Brady. I know the Minister has asked to see the results of the committee's discussions to assist her in potentially progressing her own legislation on this matter.

This issue needs to be tackled alongside, if not in advance of, the issues addressed by today's Bill. They must be progressed in parallel. We cannot be seen to provide any further incentive for employers engaged in bad practice to press or force people into the type of bogus self-employment seen at present where employers effectively determine whether people are employees or should be considered as contractors. There is a question as to the definition of a worker. The European figures I mentioned suggest that determining what is a worker or an employee is an issue Europe-wide.

This Bill also has very significant economic implications. Those who are classed as PRSI employees make contributions at the rate of 14.75%. In many cases the self-employed pay 4%. The employer is, of course, not required to make an equivalent contribution. We have to be very cognisant of ensuring that this Bill gives people the protection and support they need while not contributing to the problem of employers who have been involved in bad practice being let off the hook for contributions to the public Exchequer. That is an issue. I say that in the context of wanting to support people by giving them access to these payments but also wanting to ensure that employers feel pressure from the State. I urge the Minister to ensure that legislation to address bogus self-employment and to ensure that all those categorised as self-employed have chosen self-employment and are accurately categorised is progressed at least in parallel with, if not in advance of, this Bill. Unfortunately, we cannot say that all those categorised as self-employed in the State are accurately categorised.

We are looking at a smaller level of PRSI contribution, although I have made the case that some contributions are made which are not measurable in the same way as a direct PRSI contribution, such as the contributions made by carers from which the State has benefitted so much. The State may have to provide supplements to balance out these contributions. This relates to other issues in our pension systems such as the idea of a care credit. If such measures are to be included in budget 2020, it will require the Minister for Finance to recognise that a general taxpayer subsidy needs to be provided and increased. Bringing self-employed persons into this net of safety and protection, which is important, and recognising and supporting such people, should not come at the cost of other social welfare payments but may require instead an additional contribution from the Exchequer and the State as a whole. That is a financial question. A case can be made for such action. The case for such measures for carers can certainly be made. Others have made that case. I say these things in the context of the Minister's plans to progress this Bill in the autumn, when debate on the budget will be under way.