I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for selecting this topic for debate. The purpose of this motion is to examine the system of PRSI contributions, their conditions and benefits to try to improve the present system by making minor changes. The PRSI system is a fair way of putting money aside to ensure that benefits can be paid out to workers and their spouses, should the need arise. The principle is sound. However, there seems to be a flaw in part of the system for a certain age category. For people between the ages of 25 to 28 or 29 in many cases, the PRSI contribution conditions for treatment benefits are clearly unfair. The benefits to which I am referring are treatment benefits including dental benefit which offers free dental examination, free diagnosis, free scaling and polishing of teeth and partial payment for further treatment. It also includes optical benefits and benefits towards payment for hearing aids.
To qualify for PRSI treatment benefits for somebody who is considered to be starting work, in other words before they reach 25 years of age, they must have at least 39 weeks PRSI paid since starting work and 39 weeks PRSI paid in the relevant tax year – the tax year before they claim. This is fair and is a reasonable time for a young person to wait before receiving benefits. However, the problem arises when a young person reaches 25 years of age. He or she suddenly must have 260 weeks PRSI contributions paid since first starting work. In other words, they must have completed at least five to six years of work before they can qualify for treatment benefits. This huge jump in PRSI contribution requirements results in discrimination against people in their mid and late 20s. In order to qualify for the treatment benefits associated with PRSI contribution at the age of 25, one would have to have worked from about the age of 17, 18, or if they are lucky, 19.
Many more young people are choosing to enter third level education and, therefore, are not beginning full-time employment until the age of 22 or 23 or sometimes even later. Those new members of the work force find themselves eligible for benefits for two or three years and then at 25 suddenly they lose their benefits until they have completed 260 weeks of PRSI payments, or until they are about 30 years of age. This aspect of the system is farcical. For many young people, including a constituent of mine who brought this anomaly to my attention, they only realise to what benefits they are entitled when they are 25 or 26 years of age. The irony is that they realise they were entitled to benefits at 23 and 24 which they never took up but suddenly they are no longer eligible until they reach about 30.
I ask the Minister to consider the introduction of a fairer system which does not have such a large jump in PRSI contribution conditions at this so-called benchmark of 25 years of age. I ask him to consider a system which will introduce a less radical jump with partial increases in the number of weeks required in PRSI payments at various stages over several years in somebody's 20s instead of this jump from 39 weeks to 260 weeks when a young person reaches 25 years of age. We are trying to encourage young people to further their education, to take up third level education and to stay in college for as long as possible to maximise their skills levels. If we are to do this, we cannot on the other hand discriminate against them with our social welfare system, which we are at the moment. With a little imagination this problem can be solved relatively easily.