Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Feb 1974

Vol. 270 No. 3

Social Welfare (Alteration of Rates of Contributions) Regulations, 1974: Motion.

I move:

That the Social Welfare (Alteration of Rates of Contributions) Regulations, 1974, proposed to be made by the Minister for Social Welfare and laid in draft, sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, before Dáil Éireann on the 31st day of December, 1973, under subsection (9) of section 6 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, be approved.

The need for these regulations arises as a direct consequence of the introduction of the pay-related benefit scheme. Under that scheme, pay-related benefit will be payable to persons in the form of a supplement to certain flat rate benefits during illness or unemployment. The rate of benefit will be calculated on the part of the claimant's reckonable weekly earnings in a previous income tax year, which lies between £14 and £50. To finance the scheme a pay-related contribution amounting in all to 3 per cent of the employee's current earnings will be charged of which the employer will bear 2 per cent and the employee 1 per cent. The contributions will be collected by the Collector-General of Revenue through the income tax system mainly with PAYE. In order to facilitate the collection of contributions, it is necessary to charge contributions on all earnings up to the ceiling of £2,500 in the year. The effect of this will be that pay-related contributions will be levied on pay up to £700 in the year, which is the equivalent of £14 a week for pay-related benefit purposes. This pay will not attract any pay-related benefit and there will thus be what amounts to an overcharge of pay-related contributions on it. It is therefore necessary to compensate employers and employees for this overcharge and the most practical way in which this can be done is by reducing the flat rate contributions.

The purpose of these regulations is to make appropriate reductions in the flat rate social insurance contributions payable in respect of persons who will be within the scope of the pay-related benefit scheme. The rates being reduced are the ordinary rates which are payable in general by persons in industrial, commercial and services-type employments and the special rates payable by male and female agricultural workers, who are being brought into the scheme by regulations, drafts of which have already been approved by this House.

The amount of the reduction proposed for the 3 per cent levied on pay up to £14 a week is 42p per week and, as the employer is liable for 2 per cent of the pay-related contribution as against the employee's 1 per cent, his element of the flat rate contribution is being reduced by 28p per week while the employee's element is being reduced by 14p per week. These reductions being in a flat rate contribution are of necessity themselves flat rate and affect all persons paying the contributions equally regardless of earnings.

The liability for pay-related contributions will commence as from Saturday, 6th April, 1974, which is the start of the 1974-75 income tax year, and I propose that the reduction in the appropriate flat rate contributions should take effect as from Monday, 1st April, 1974, which is the start of the first contribution week in that year.

The regulations for this purpose which it is proposed to make under subsection (9) of section 6 of the Social Welfare Act 1952, may not be made until a resolution approving of the draft regulations has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I recommend the draft regulations for the approval of Dáil Éireann.

With regard to the motion on the alteration of rates of contribution regulations, I must admit that I was mystified for some time in regard to the price of stamps to the employer and to the employee referred to in the motion. I was unable to relate its price to the price of the stamp for 1972-73 or 1973-74, but I made some inquiries and I now understand it relates specifically to the cost of the stamp for social insurance purposes only and does not refer to redundancy, health or occupational injuries.

There was, of course, a need to reduce the total payments under the pay-related benefit scheme in relation to the stamp and to the percentage of gross earnings, because earnings up to £14 a week, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, did not attract pay-related benefits. The way in which the deductions were estimated would appear to be equitable. However, when one notes, in the information I have from replies the Parliamentary Secretary gave me to questions the other day, that the cost of the scheme for the next 12 months will be £10 million and the income from 3 per cent of gross earnings, less the reduced stamp contribution, would be £12.7 million, I just wonder why it has been found necessary to have a surplus of £2.7 million over and above the cost of the scheme. I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain this. I should also like him to let me know when those who will soon be in the pay-related benefits scheme will benefit from the scheme, and also if any other changes will be necessary in the contribution.

Deputy Faulkner has raised a few points on which I should like to comment. As the House is fully aware, this is a new scheme and we can only estimate as to what charges might be made against the fund that is being established. If it is found after the scheme has been in operation for some time that there is a surplus, allowing for normal safeguards against fluctuations and claims, the matter will be re-examined to see whether it is possible either to reduce the cost of the scheme or to pay increased benefits. It is usual in the case of new schemes of this nature to await a certain period of operation to see how they work out. When the scheme commences at the beginning of April people will qualify immediately for benefit provided they fulfil all the necessary conditions.

It is not anticipated at this stage that there will be any increase in the cost of the scheme, but some adjustment of the cost of the stamp would be necessary if there were any increases or additions as a result of budgetary proposals. Outside that possibility, it is not anticipated that there will be any change in the foreseeable future as regards the cost of the scheme.

(Dublin Central): Will there be an additional stamp for this deduction.

No, there is no question of an additional stamp.

(Dublin Central): But it would be automatically deducted under PAYE. At what time would it be deducted? Will there not be a difference here?

This would be with the ordinary payments of PAYE.

Yes. Arrangements have been made with the Revenue people that they would collect it through the PAYE system.

(Dublin Central): Will it be included in the PAYE stamp or will there be an additional stamp?

There is no intention of having an additional stamp. The present stamping arrangement will continue.

(Dublin Central): I am not talking about the present stamping of insurance cards but about the additional deduction of 3 per cent. In what form will it be returned?

It will be collected by the Revenue Commissioners and transferred to us.

(Dublin Central): But in what form?

A percentage of your current income.

(Dublin Central): But it will not be included in the normal national health stamp and will not be part of that because there would be too much of a difference between employees?

No. In fact, the normal stamp will be reduced to allow for the stoppage of the total 3 per cent, 2 per cent for the employer and 1 per cent for the employee, by the Revenue Commissioners. That will then be transferred to the fund by the Revenue Commissioners. There is no provision for an additional stamp.

How will wet time fit in with this arrangement? Will building workers fit in in the normal way?

It does not affect wet time in any way.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share