Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister and her Department for her offer of a briefing on this legislation. I very much regret that I could not attend it at the very short notice. That is most unfortunate for all of us. In a way I welcome the fact that something is being done on this pensions issue but I am very disappointed at how little is being done and particularly at the manner in which it is being done. We have had seriously inadequate time to research and explore the implications of this proposed legislation and that has implications for its passage through this House. I acknowledge the need for a steady pension ship but I also acknowledge the need for a steady legislative process which will give us adequate time to allow us to research and debate these matters and all their implications comprehensively.

The Government's admission that workers' pension schemes need protecting is undoubtedly good news, but the bad news is that the proposed scheme is so limited. For example, the scheme does not acknowledge the insecurity of the market upon which pension provision relies or the fact that a significant number of workers have no pension provision at all. We need fundamental reform of the pension system and quickly.

Two years ago, in 2007, I proposed increasing and universalising the State pension which would be augmented by a social insurance earnings-related pension. This is the type of reform not addressed by the Government's Green Paper on pensions, which sought instead to privatise pension provision. The form proposed by my party was progressive and, more importantly, equitable and sustainable. I have persistently called for the abolition of the PRSI ceiling and the standardising of tax reliefs, which currently benefit those on higher incomes. The public purse would have been better off by approximately €1 billion if tax relief on pensions were standardised. Why was this not done in this month's emergency budget? Surely that €1 billion would have been appreciated in the coffers, although it has been claimed that the proposal before us today is cost neutral. I also called for a PRSI increase of 1% on all workers to boost the social insurance fund, which is at risk of running out. In a full year this increase and the abolition of the PRSI ceiling would have put an extra €950 million into the country's coffers. Again, why did the Government not undertake this measure?

Two important principles need to be attached to any pension scheme, namely adequacy of financial provision for people to live out their retirement years in some level of comfort and reasonableness, and equity or fairness across the board on all these matters. Will this scheme impact on people who have recently become unemployed who had been contributing to a pension scheme but are not in a position to do so while unemployed? What is the likely impact on them? They can no longer subscribe to the pension scheme to which they had subscribed. Others made the point on the pension schemes for workers at Waterford Crystal and SR Technics. I would appreciate if any clarification could be brought to bear on whether those people will be included in this scheme.

See this speech in context