Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil an deis againn, in ainneoin go mbeidh an deis srianta amárach, labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Is trua go bhfuil sé i gceist ag an Rialtas an t-am chun plé ceart a dhéanamh ar an Bhille seo a shrianadh, ní amháin ar an Chéim seo ach ar Céim an Choiste agus na Tuarascála chomh maith.

Gabhaim buíochas le hoifigigh na Roinne a thug an míniúchán dom ar an Bhille seo Dé hAoine toisc gur Bille casta é. Tá a lán forálacha ann agus thóg sé tamall dúinn dul i dtaithí leis go hiomlán toisc cé chomh tapaidh agus atá an Bille os ár gcomhair. Níor foilsíodh é ach ar an Déardaoin seo caite agus táimid á phlé inniu, i gcoinne an ghnáthchleachtais sa Dáil de laistigh de seachtain ón Bhille bheith foilsithe. Gabhaim buíochas leis na hoifigigh ón Roinn a bhí in ann roinnt de na gnéithe a shíl mé go raibh siad casta a mhíniú dom, rudaí teicniúla lena bhfuilimid ag déileáil agus atá loighiciúil chun fáil réidh leo toisc nár scrios muid iad nuair a bhí muid ag rith an Achta um Páirtnéireacht Shibhialta agus um Chearta agus Oibleagáidí agus roinnt rudaí atá tar éis titim as úsáid, mar shampla nach bhfuil ach tríúr duine ag fáil the dependent parents pension faoin am seo. Is ceart agus is cóir go ndéanfaimid déileáil le rudaí mar sin agus tarlaíonn sin go minic nuair atá athruithe suntasacha ag tarlú ó thaobh Roinne.

Mar sin féin, is oth liom a rá go bhfuil mé chun moladh do mo pháirtí cur i gcoinne an Bhille de thairbhe go bhfuil rudaí ann nach n-aontaím leo agus nár aontaigh mé leo nuair a tháinig siad os comhair na Dála faoi réimse Fhianna Fáil agus na nGlasach. Dá réir sin, cuirfidh mé ina choinne, agus míneoidh mé sin níos déanaí.

Ceann de na príomhrudaí a chuir bac liom a bheith sa Bhille ná alt 24, go bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh Acht dá chuid féin a chur ar leataobh. Tá sé tábhachtach cur ina choinne seo agus beidh mé ag moladh ar Chéim an Choiste go scriosfar seo ón Bhille ach go háirithe. Ní fiú tráithnín Acht a rith sa Dáil má tá sé le cur ar leataobh díreach nuair is mian le Rialtas sin a dhéanamh. Níl an leithscéal a úsáideadh - nach bhfuil sé ar chumas iad siúd atá ag aistriú Billí in ann an Bille seo a aistriú tapaidh go leor - maith go leor. Sílim féin go bhfuil sé ach bheadh sé i bhfad níos éasca d'aistritheoirí, mar a dúirt mé blianta ó shin, agus a dúirt mé arís agus arís eile, dá mbeadh téacs de Bhillí as Gaeilge sa chéad dul síos maraon leis an Bhéarla. Bheadh sé i bhfad Éireann níos tapúla ansin dóibh leasú a dhéanamh agus dá mbeadh sin déanta sa chás seo nó i gcás Billí éigeandálacha eile, bheidís in ann é a chasadh timpeall san am ar ghá dá mbeimis ag iarraidh clói le hamchlár éigin roghnaithe ag an IMF nó pé duine a bheadh ag gabháilt leis na coinníollacha ón IMF a chomhlíonadh.

Casfaidh mé ar an chuid eile de na forálacha sa Bhille agus déanfaidh mé an argóint sin maidir le halt 24 nuair a bheimid ar Céim an Choiste. The contents and purpose of this Bill have been flagged by the Government to the Oireachtas and the wider public for some time. The Bill was to have had two purposes - to reduce an employer's PRSI contribution on low wages and to raise the pension age to 68. In the eleventh hour the Government cynically and inappropriately dropped the restoration of the minimum wage into the Bill, a measure that should have applied to a stand-alone Bill or, at minimum, to an amendment to a Finance Bill. The decision to include it in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill is contemptuous in that it seeks to cover up an attack on older people. It is a fig leaf to cover a cut of 16% in pension entitlements. That was the intention in this Bill and it was flagged by Fianna Fáil in particular. In this instance, the Labour Party leadership is cynically using the minimum wage to bully its own Deputies into supporting the single biggest cut to pensions ever contemplated.

The Bill before the House was supposed to have been about social welfare and pensions, not about the minimum wage. I examined it to make sure; it is a Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, with no mention of the minimum wage. Its definition is: "Bill entitled an Act to amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts and the Pensions Acts 1990 to 2010, to amend and modify other enactments and to provide for related matters." The minimum wage must be merely another related matter. In fact, however, the changes to it were introduced in a Finance Bill and they should be restored in a similar Bill. My colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, has tabled an amendment to the Finance (No. 2) Bill which would restore the minimum wage more quickly than this Bill can and that measure would be more understandable in a more appropriate Bill.

There is near unanimity in the House on this issue, except, to date, on the part of Fianna Fáil. However, the Deputy who spoke before me indicated he would not oppose the restoration of the minimum wage, which is a welcome sign. The drafting has been done. If the Government were more honest in its approach on this issue, I am confident the measure could be passed within a matter of hours and do not believe there would be any opposition. However, it is playing games. The more quickly the measure can be passed the better, because the current system is costing the lowest paid people in our country money, €40 per week in many cases. Since the reduction was applied, it has meant the equivalent of almost €800 lost to the lowest paid in this State, with 50,000 workers affected.

The minimum wage should be restored immediately. It was fundamentally wrong to cut it in the first place and we should not be forced to exchange its restoration for far-reaching cuts to the State pension entitlements. Future generations of older people are being offered to the EU-IMF by this Government as a down payment for its bank bailout. It would be much easier, and more appropriate, for the Government to add the restoration of the minimum wage as a one-line amendment to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, currently before the Dáil. Instead it is holding back, inserting the measure in an artificial manner into a pensions Bill. I shall return to that if I have enough time.

This Bill will put in train a framework to raise the age for all State pensions, initially to 66, then to 67 and finally to 68. We shall see whether over the term of this Government the age may be further extended. This proposal to raise the pension age will most adversely affect those on low incomes who do not have the option of an occupational or private pension, or of savings. These older people, who are often in the most physically demanding jobs, will have no choice but to continue working until the later age regardless of the impact on their health. In addition, forcing older people to remain in employment means there will be fewer jobs for young people or for those now being forced to emigrate. The latest CSO figures put unemployment at a yearly high. Emigration figures continue to grow. It is absolute madness even to talk about forcing another swathe of people on to the dole or to emigrate. This Bill will abolish the State pension transition in 2014. When I asked what is being done to support all those whose employment contracts will cease at the age of 55 or 65, the Minister's response was that they can join everybody else on the dole queue. Unemployment for those aged 60 and older rocketed from 2.5% in 2005 to 9% in 2010 and raising the pension age will simply add to this figure.

Those aged 50 who are laid off today could face 18 years on the dole. There is nothing either in this Bill or in the jobs initiative to indicate where jobs will originate for that age category. Such jobs need to be meaningful, not merely the packing of shelves. Age discrimination occurs. We need to see what steps the Government will take to ensure there are opportunities for people aged 50, 55 and 60 who are laid off and end up in the dole queues and that they are not seen as ending up on the waste heap, to finish their employment days on the dole waiting for their pension. I do not see any particular targeted activation measures for those people. So far, most initiatives, of which there are not many for those on the dole queues, are targeted at young people. This is vital too but there must be measures across the board, especially given the enormous growth in numbers of those who find themselves unemployed at a later age. It would be a good move were that to happen because there is a significant wealth of knowledge, experience and expertise not being tapped at present which needs to be tapped and encouraged, although not to the detriment of young people coming to the jobs market. It needs to be encouraged, although not to the detriment of young people who are entering the jobs market. There needs to be a two-pronged approach to jobs activation. There should not be a single approach.

The Minister's defence of the decision to raise the pension age relies on economic theories that are only of relevance to times of strong economic and employment growth. When I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter, I put it to the Minister that the logical outcome of forcing one category of people to remain in employment would be a curtailment in the number of jobs available for young and not so young jobseekers. If the working years are extended and the pension age is moved further away, the availability of jobs will be curtailed. If people in public sector jobs continue to work until they are 65, 66, 67 or 68 years of age, such jobs will not become available. Not many public sector jobs are being offered at present as a result of the recruitment embargo. I hope the time will come when the embargo is no longer in place. The same thing applies to private and semi-State companies. The Minister responded to my parliamentary question by citing the lump of labour fallacy and claiming there is no correlation between the two employment rates. The theory she referred to is of no relevance to an economy that is in recession. It is relevant at times of low unemployment and huge prosperity. I do not know whether the Minister will re-examine the lump of labour fallacy, which she quoted in response to my question. She should reconsider who the economic illiterate is on this question.

The Minister has told me categorically that by 2050, the ratio of workers to pensioners will be approximately 2:1. When we make such predictions so far in advance, we need to state honestly that they are not an exact science. It is simply not possible to predict what the ratio of pensioners to workers, and consequently the level of State pension affordability, will be 40 or 50 years from now. Far too many volatile factors, including employment levels, migration levels, birth trends and economic growth, have to be considered when making any such prediction. As we have seen to our cost over the last decade, all of the factors in question are fluid. Having said that, it is important to be prudent. Nobody is suggesting we should spend unwisely. My party has demonstrated that the State pension would be affordable for many years into the future, from the current ages, if the Government were willing to target Ireland's wealth in a fair and progressive manner. Some €1 billion could be saved each year if the tax reliefs on private pension contributions were standardised. If the cap on earnings from pension contributions were lowered to €75,000, some €100 million per annum could be saved. If it were lowered further, as some people have suggested, a bit more could be raised. We have suggested a cap of €75,000. In the absence of reform on both of these issues, we should not be talking about making a single older person work a day longer.

Since Fianna Fáil first proposed an increase in the pension age in 2010, a range of organisations and voices have expressed concern and, in some cases, outright opposition. Some of them have been careful in their comments on the proposal and others have highlighted their total opposition to it. Age Action Ireland has expressed its concern that the increase in the pension age will introduce a poverty trap at the age of 65. It has highlighted its concerns in some of its publications. It is proposed that the age at which one qualifies for the State pension will increase from 66 to 67 in 2021 and to 68 in 2028. Age Action Ireland believes this combined approach has the potential to create a poverty trap for older workers, especially those working in the private sector with contracts to work until they are 65. That issue needs to be addressed, but that is not happening here. The contracts in question, which were designed with the State transition pension in mind, provide protection to workers until they qualify for the State pension. We also need to address that issue in this Bill. Other people will also be affected by the transitional arrangements.

According to the Age Action Ireland briefing, if this Bill is passed in its current form, many older workers will be forced out of full-time employment at 65 and will have to sign on the dole for 12 months. That would cost the State money. The Government is setting these measures in stone to satisfy a commitment is made under the EU and IMF programme of financial support for Ireland. It must start planning to prevent as many older workers as possible from being caught in this new poverty trap. It is in the Government's own financial interests to do so. This proposal will cause hardship to individual workers and families. From 2014, workers whose contracts end on their 65th birthdays will not be allowed to claim the State pension until they are 66. That age will increase to 67 or 68 at a later stage. They will be left with no option but to sign on the dole. That is the blunt message transmitted by Age Action Ireland when this issue was raised with senior Government officials. At current prices - this is the key issue - the Government will save just over €40 a week, which is the difference between the unemployment payment and the contributory pension. It is not the case that a huge saving will accrue from this proposal, particularly in so far as it relates to those who are under contract until they are 65. Other countries that have sought to change the pension age have provided for much longer lead-in times to ensure people do not end up in poverty traps of this nature and to assist those who are stuck in contracts that require them to retire at the age of 65. The publication of this Bill suggests that the Minister intends to persist with it. I urge her to examine the specific cut-off dates that have been proposed.

Another group, Older and Bolder, has highlighted the dangers of the extremely short lead-in time. It has emphasised that a different lead-in time has been proposed in England and elsewhere. The proposed timeframe will not allow older people in physically demanding jobs to retrain, to take steps to secure more manageable work or to seek a change in the dates that have been suggested. The Minister's party colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, was very vocal on this issue when she was the Labour Party's spokesperson on social welfare in opposition. She said the proposal to "raise the State Pension Age to 66 yrs in 2014 should be abandoned". It will be interesting to see whether she stands by that comment when the House votes on this legislation. I doubt it very much. She continued:

The move is particularly crude on those who have worked for nearly 50 years and have paid almost 50 years of social insurance. In such cases they have already met the qualifying conditions for the State pension and will, in effect, be making worthless contributions in their remaining years in the workforce.

I would love to hear what the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, has to say about those comments at this stage. To what extent has she changed her mind since she stepped into the shoes of Government? Wealthier older people will continue to have options. Many of them will be able to fall back on private pension arrangements and savings until their State pensions kick in. As usual, those on low incomes and those who have been in and out of the workforce will be hardest hit by these proposals.

The trade unions have been relatively quiet on this issue since the new Government indicated that it intended to retain Fianna Fáil's policy in this area. When these proposals were first made, the president of SIPTU, Jack O'Connor, described them as "an assault on the State old age pension provision". The Irish Senior Citizens Parliament is opposed to the mandatory raising of the pension age. They insist that any increase should be voluntary and my party agrees wholeheartedly with that proposal. I believe that this is being covered up by the inclusion of the minimum wage in this Bill and that Members will try to focus on that to avoid having to explain away to their constituents how the Government is undercutting the entitlements to pensions by 16%.

The employers' PRSI changes in this Bill are also interesting. The Bill proposes to half the employers' rate of PRSI on jobs that pay up to €356 per week. I doubt this change will create many new jobs. Instead it will likely precipitate extensive wage cuts because employers will be strongly incentivised to bring down wages that are currently at or around the €400 mark to €356 because of the savings they can make. The wage cuts that will inevitably ensue will have a serious and negative impact on Exchequer finances because revenues raised from employers' PRSI contributions and the taxes from the employees will be reduced and the State will also end up spending more on in-work benefits such as the family income supplement if, as I believe, there is a reduction in the numbers who will be on the €356 per week cut-off figure.

There are presently 90,000 workers living in relative poverty. It is madness to risk adding substantially more people to that number. Some €356 per week is well below the poverty line for many family sizes and the current employers' PRSI rate is not the reason that there are so few jobs. The collapse in domestic consumer power is a far greater culprit and by incentivising lower wages, this Bill will compound that collapse and, in turn, add to the current jobs crisis. High energy and rent costs are two more significant factors preventing employers from creating jobs and to date the Government has not moved substantially on those matters. There has been no move to date, despite repeated calls by myself and others, to abolish forthwith the upward only rent reviews, and also on the issue of subcontractors who have been suffering continually by the overall contractor walking away from them and abandoning their bills, and subcontractors themselves abandoning others below them. Despite a promise, that latter issue has not been addressed to date. If more time had been put into addressing those two issues then the Government would have substantially more jobs in the economy or at least would see employers being able to hold on to some of the employees that they are having to let go because of the austerity measures and the collapse of the purchasing power of consumers.

At a minimum, we need to prevent the dumping and re-hiring of staff at a lower level, especially those on contracts, to ensure that employers are not availing of the halving of the employers' PRSI rate on jobs. I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage limiting the new lower rate of employers' PRSI to jobs that are evidenced as being new because that is key. A streamlined panel, including representatives from trade unions and employers, could sign off on posts which can be demonstrably shown to be new to which the new rate could apply. I am not looking to set up a quango. It could be done quite easily and quickly.

I also intend to push for the introduction of a requirement for a review after the first year identifying the number of new jobs that have been created and a sunset clause if that threshold of new jobs has not been reached. The review would also consider the number of complaints made, for instance, by persons who claim that they were let go and somebody new had been taken on at the lower rate of €356 or where they were basically forced to reapply for their exact same job. That is illegal under labour law, but it is something that is happening. We need to ensure that whatever measures we take here do not add to what has been happening in the employment area.

There are other points in this legislation which need to be looked at. One I would also oppose is section 9, which makes a number of amendments. I am opposed not to the amendments themselves per se but to the changes which were made to the one-parent family payment last year by the Fianna Fáil Government. I will clarify my opposition to it on Committee Stage, where I will try to reverse what was intended there because it is detrimental that the proper activation measures are not in place to give effect to what might in another era by quite a progressive change to ensure that there were jobs available for everybody. This is a crude measure to force people back to work even though there is no work for them.

Section 15 strengthens the provisions relating to the use of public services cards by providing for the cancellation and surrender of these cards where evidence becomes available that the card is being used illegally. I do not have a major difficulty with the card itself but before we start strengthening the provisions we need to know how long it will be before we see the cards in full use. Has it gone to tender? What is the cost of it? We need the answers to such questions. I urge the Minister to bring those figures with her to the Committee Stage debate if at all possible.

Section 16 relates to the national internship scheme. I hope that this scheme and the Tús scheme do not become free jobs for employers to use to employ somebody for a year to do work that would otherwise have to be filled by somebody in paid employment. Neither scheme involves any additionality for those who are coming off the unemployment register other than that they are in employment and there is no cost to the employer who gets free labour for quite a number of months or, in some cases, a full year.

The final area I would ask the Minister to look at is the issue of the PPSN. The Bill extends the list of bodies specified that can use the number. I urge the Minister to look at using the Bill to extend their use to the local authority franchise sections. If we then change the law in terms of who is eligible to vote, the local authorities would already have been authorised by this and it might only take a small change to allow us have the electoral register based on PPSN rather than on the current way of having to register continually.

See this speech in context