Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

To take the Deputy's last point, where there is a will, hopefully there will be an amendment. In this case there was none from the Deputies to do this retrospectively. The retrospective issue is the difficulty, as Deputy McDonald knows. There is huge difficulty with retrospection. People come into an employment with a particular contract. They have an expectation of what the benefits will be as a result of that employment, so one cannot retrospectively damage that contract.

It is important that the Minister has introduced a cap of 50% of the final payment. It is probably the type of index linking the Deputies are seeking. The amendment introduces a specific payment of €60,000. People entering the service now at the levels people entered in the past means we are talking about 30 to 40 years hence. There will be many legislative measures passed between now and then. It is reasonable to assume that the sum of €60,000 in 20, 30 or 40 years will not be a great deal of money. That is also important.

The Minister does not accept the amendment. The sentiment behind it is fully understood. Deputies on this side of the House are very conscious of how the public feels about things that are seen to be excessive. Hopefully, those days are gone and this legislation is part and parcel of the process of putting more equity back into the system. The amendments specify €60,000 for one group and €37,000 for another group. I am not defending myself in this instance but talking about equity, and if somebody has the same level of service, has made the contribution and in some instances paid a lot more with the faster accruing contributions, I do not understand the amendments from that point of view. What the Minister has done is very reasonable. When a legislative measure is before the House one must assume it will last the distance and in this case we are talking about people who might very well be collecting those pensions 30, 40 or 50 years hence. Putting a cap of 50% of the final salary in the legislation is probably as crude and blunt an instrument as the Deputy mentioned but it is a far more equitable one. We will not accept the amendment.

See this speech in context