Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

In an honest interval Deputy Finian McGrath might even concede that. However, on this occasion we are talking about the important area of social welfare reform and pensions. I take the opportunity to discuss pensions again. The problems with the pensions sector are obvious. The Central Statistics Office figures earlier this month reflected the fact that coverage has decreased in 2004-05, particularly among men, and especially in the west of Ireland. That pattern is unfortunate. We have two Deputies from the west here and they may know more about why that pattern appears to be more pronounced in that part of the country. It is a problem we will have to face in 20 years' time.

The problem will be exacerbated by the vast increases in public service pensions. It is estimated that they will quadruple from the payments that were made around 1989 compared to what will have to be made in 2030, a bill in region of €3 billion which will have to be paid by all taxpayers, public and private workers. That is a problem we will have to face. Naturally, the Government has taken major steps towards addressing it, but much more has to be done. I just want to reflect on those CSO figures, however. The numbers have gone down and that does not seem to make sense because, clearly, Irish people are prepared and willing to save. They are willing to put money aside. What is not included in the figures compiled by the National Pensions Board is the fact that so many have second homes and rental properties which are actually their pensions. Until we accept this and try to factor it into assessment of needs in 20 years time, we cannot grasp the figures as they apply.

An article by Mr. David McWilliams in yesterday's Irish Independent described this fault line between those who had bought houses in the 1980s and before and those who had purchased them from the mid-1990s onwards. Those on the good side of that fault line, the older people of Ireland, have major equity which they have been able to transform into second homes and rental properties. Ultimately, these assets will represent their pensions as lump sum payments when they cease to work, whenever that may be.

Mr. McWilliams described how a house bought for between £20,000 and £30,000 in 1982 or 1983 would now be worth more than €1.5 million. This increase in personal wealth cannot be measured against any increase in effort, risk or any other factor. It is simply an accident of time and circumstances which occurred without the owner's intervention.

Those of us on the other side of this fault line who have come into the housing market late, too late in some circumstances, have either negative equity or nothing as lucrative as the older people of Ireland have managed to gain. This state of affairs must be taken into account when one is assessing pension coverage.

Younger people are also being forced into defined contribution pension schemes which are far less lucrative than public sector pension schemes and older defined benefit schemes. People in the latter schemes have many more advantages than younger people in defined contribution schemes. Mr. McWilliams's article was very interesting and well researched. I hope the change in figures will be acknowledged by the Pensions Board.

One of the issues referred to in the board's report, which was published in January 2006, was the question of mandatory pensions. The Minister said he will be forced to consider whether mandatory pensions can and should be introduced in Ireland. At the moment, employers and employees face compulsory social insurance contributions, but mandatory pensions would be another tier on top of this. However, introducing mandatory pensions is a soft and easy option to take when certain other options should be considered and pursued.

Introducing mandatory pensions would be particularly damaging to small and medium enterprises. Larger businesses have the time, expertise and resources to set up the superannuation schemes required under a mandatory system but smaller businesses would be damaged by it. They already operate in a high-cost, competitive environment where rates, insurance, energy costs and wages are increasing. Adding this further layer of bureaucracy, together with all the administrative costs associated with it, would be particularly damaging for small and medium-sized enterprises.

We should examine other options for addressing the pensions issue. One of these is a public information campaign. Deputies may have seen a very well resourced public awareness campaign on television in respect of recycling. It featured the well known celebrity gardener, Diarmuid Gavin, and an older woman who was showing inappropriate affection for him. The campaign exhorted the public to reduce, re-use and recycle. Everybody understands the message of this light-hearted campaign, which has been broadcast for a number of months.

A similar campaign that would focus on the pensions sector is needed. In doing so, the Government would be pushing an open door as people in Ireland have a propensity to save. The success of the simple, understandable and transparent SSIA scheme, which was taken up by 1 million people, is proof of this. The scheme was, admittedly, a no-brainer, so to speak, and a short-term scheme. However, there is an untapped market as Irish people have a propensity to save. Personal retirement savings accounts have clearly not been as successful as they could have been, in spite of changes included in this Bill. We need a nationwide public awareness campaign which would explain to people that if they do not take out a pension and face old age with just the State pension, they will be forced to live on an income of just €9,000 per annum. While there have been considerable increases in pension coverage over recent years, these stark figures may cause a few people to wake up.

We must address the question of how to persuade people of my generation and those who are younger to take out pensions. I have reached the age where I am beginning to acknowledge my mortality. I acknowledge that I may not be here forever and I can envisage old age, especially on Saturday mornings. People of my age and younger need to be made aware of the necessity of pension coverage because of the changes that have taken place. A proper public awareness programme would accomplish this aim. It is not appropriate to consider a mandatory pension scheme at the moment because it is a soft option.

Only 24,000 carers out of the approximately 150,000 carers in the State receive either carer's benefit or carer's allowance. There has been considerable progress in improving the lot of carers, particularly in the last budget and social welfare legislation, but we have a long way to go. I read a rather cynical article recently which argued that a minority can always determine Government policy if it is well organised. Examples of such minorities would include taxi drivers, heavy goods vehicle drivers, farmers in general and poultry farmers. Such minorities can have a disproportionate influence on Government policy merely because they are well organised.

On the other hand, by virtue of the 24-hour, seven day a week work they do in caring for individuals, carers are not as capable of organising themselves, yet the budget contained a 20% increase in the carer's allowance, which was the highest single increase in any payment under the social welfare scheme, which is a credit to the Government. It shows that the Government is not necessarily influenced by the loudest voices but is influenced by a genuine and sincere issue, as was the case with carers. It proves that one does not need to block traffic or drive sheep into Department foyers to influence Government policy. One can do so by the very logic of one's argument. I am very pleased to see that this has happened in respect of carers.

The Carers Association raised the issue of insurance contributions in respect of people receiving carer's benefit. The issue has become even more significant because the duration of carer's benefit has been increased to two years. It is important that insurance contributions be allowed to continue, as is the case in respect of the changes made to the child care income disregard of €10,000. This issue should be addressed if the Government has not already done so. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context