Senator Gerard Craughwell- speech from 16 Dec 2021

Thank you very much. Minister, you're very welcome to the House. At the outset, I want to pay a compliment to you and your department on how quickly you reacted over the last couple of years with the COVID-19 crisis. It can't be easy, but by God, you turned it around very quickly when you were asked to do so. On a personal note, yourself, when a member of the Cabinet needed maternity leave, you stepped up to the plate and you took on two very difficult departments. You're to be congratulated for that. I hope that we will see in the very near future that there is proper legislation in place to facilitate maternity leave for members of the Cabinet and indeed members of the House, all Houses, including local authorities. But, of course, Minister, I couldn't let the day go without having something to moan about. It's the nature of the beast, I guess. And I take this opportunity every year to speak about Class K PRSI. Class K PRSI for officeholders was introduced in 2011 under the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2010. For the first time, all officeholders, including members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, judges and the Attorney General, the President, and those in receipt of non-earned income, were subjected to pay Class K PRSI. It's deducted at a rate of 4% from salary, but there are no entitlements to social protection benefits. As soon as I was elected to the Shannon in 2014, I raised this issue on a regular basis and began work on a Rapp and Tears report with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection at that time. That report was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I understand the second Rapp and Tears report has been since delivered on Class K as well. However, to date, there is no progress on the matter in this House, despite numerous debates and reports. When this was challenged in the courts by myself and a number of County Councillors, the Minister for Social Protection of the Day, Deputy Leo Varadkar, anticipated the outcome of the legal challenge and introduced an amendment to the Social Welfare Bill 2016 at committee stage to remove City and County Councillors from the officeholder category. And their PRSI contributions was changed to Class S. It's my contention that the continued imposition of Class K PRSI on all officeholders, including members of the Oireachtas, is unconstitutional. As officeholders are paying for a social welfare fund for which they're without any right to benefits from it. Essentially, would any of us take out an insurance policy on our home or our health insurance if we couldn't draw down on it? There is a misconception out there that members of the Oireachtas leave here with a cushy pension and were well looked after. All of us in this House know how precarious the profession of politics has become and indeed at the last election, a number of one-time TDs and Senators lost their seats. In losing their seats at a time of a national pandemic, they found that they couldn't get employment. And when they were unable to get unemployment, they were unable to draw on any social welfare contributions and found themselves in dire straits. So, I mean, this is not the comfortable golden handshake job that people think it is. A lot of our former colleagues suffered badly when they left this House after the last election. There are several problems with Class K PRSI, which I'm sure you're aware of, Minister. The insurance benefits that are approved to a person paying Class K PRSI are nil. The terms and conditions of employment of elected Senators and Deputies carry no entitlements to illness benefits. If a person falls ill at the end of a dial period, there's an election called and they have nothing to draw down on from that perspective. As I said, they're not entitled to any benefits with respect to unemployment. But more importantly, your social welfare record is now broken and that will impact you in years to come. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it will impact you in years to come. Now, the argument has been made that, Asher, we can make voluntary contributions and we should do that as members of the Oireachtas. Well, the voluntary contribution is not as simple as it sounds and the cost of voluntary contributions is exorbitant. If you're on a Class S PRSI when you come in here, a voluntary contribution is about €500. If you're on a Class A when you come in here and you wish to keep your Class A up and running, you'll pay €5,000. And clearly €5,000 is not. You'll be a long time on social welfare before you see that back. Look, Minister, at the end of the day, the Class K PRSI from a member of this House's perspective, it is a tax on public service. And that's the only thing it can be required or interpreted as. The same applies to members of the judiciary, the president. OK, you can argue they're all well paid. That's not the point. Social protection insurance is not where we should be deducting that money. If you want to take 4% off me because I'm a well paid member of the Oireachtas, take it off me in tax. Put in a special tax rate for public service and do it right. But for God's sake, take Class K out of the social protection bill. It shouldn't be there. And for unerringed income, I have countless letters and emails from people who are a married couple. One is paying Class S on rental income and the other partner is paying Class K on rental income because of their different employment circumstances. In one case, it's unearned income. In the other case, it is part of their income stream, if you want, the rental income that they have. I agree that people who benefit from share purchases and the like should make a contribution to society. But making it through the social protection bill is not the way to do it. So, I do understand, Minister, that, you know, it takes time to move these things. But we're talking about it now since 2014. And I'd ask you when you go back, I'm not going to put in any amendments to the bill at this stage. This is something I think can be done by a minister in collaboration with her staff. You can find a way to rejig that particular section of the social welfare bill. It's just wrong. As I say, I am in no way against people paying 4% of their income because of holding a particular office. I'm not against that. But do it through the tax system and leave us with our social protection in place. Because, as I say, we have a number of colleagues who left here in 2020 who suffered badly as a result of the last case. So, I'll leave it at that. And once again, Minister, do please pass on to your staff our gratitude for the tremendous work they've done over the last two years. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.