Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is fair to say prior to the banking crash which damaged the economy a huge emphasis was placed on encouraging people to invest in their future through pension schemes, and we all remember the almost daily television and radio advertisements. The emphasis was all on workers investing and little emphasis was placed on the regulation or robustness of the actuarial assessments of the health of the schemes. We are probably having this debate today in part because of this. Some semi-state companies were and are also hugely exposed. When the previous Government sold the majority shareholding in Aer Lingus I remember the chief executive arguing at the time that there was a huge hole in the pension fund. This was prior to the crash. He argued there should have been investment in the pension fund at that stage but this did not happen. To a degree, the current sense of anger and frustration among people dates to this decision not being made by the previous Government.

The Bill is obviously an attempt to retrieve a bad situation. I take the point made by Deputy Joan Collins to the effect that only the minimum is being done. We were previously informed that the pension levy would be a one-off temporary measure. The commitment in this regard should be restated in the House today. There was consultation with some of the stakeholders prior to the publication of the Bill. However, we were informed that in future legislation would be dealt with differently and that there would be a pre-legislative stage. The legislation before us would have benefited greatly if consultation had actually taken place when the heads of the Bill had been published. The Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament is on record as stating:

It is worth reiterating that pensioners are former workers who are now in receipt of a benefit for which they and their employer paid during their working lives. Employers asserted that pension payments and sponsorship of pension schemes was a benefit to an employee and was a valid part of remuneration. [People sometimes earned less because they were of the view that this was part of the package.] Membership of schemes was compulsory [in a substantial number of cases] ...

Senior citizens are not, therefore, disinterested parties and I completely accept the point they make in respect of their being given an automatic right of audience. The Bill should be altered to take account of this. Prior to the early 1970s pensioners had a right of audience to the industrial relations machinery of the State. The Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament has also stated, "In many schemes Pensioners and or their associations are denied access to Scheme Trustees [and sponsoring employees]". This is unacceptable and it must be changed in order that people will be fully engaged.

I agree with the points made by Deputy John Halligan on the former employees of Waterford Crystal who took their case to the European Court of Justice. It is clear these workers will obtain at least 50% of their pensions. What makes their case doubly unfair and what is angering them is that instead of paying the guaranteed 50% now as a gesture of goodwill - it will have to be paid - the Government is waiting for the court case before making any payment. That is the wrong way to approach this matter. Again, the Irish Senior Citizens' Parliament has pointed to a number of facts in respect of this matter and I wish to refer to some of them. In the first instance, not everyone is going to end up with €12,000. Those being paid under €12,000 will obviously receive less than this. I say this just in case people are under the impression that everyone is going to receive €12,000. As some members of pension schemes do not have State pensions, they will not receive a double amount. They may well have qualified for the non-contributory pension as a result of this. It would be useful if the numbers underpinning the legislation could be provided. As many schemes are integrated, the value of the State pension is taken into account when calculating the changes under discussion. Changes to contribution requirements in respect of qualifying for the State pension mean that some people may not receive full pensions.

A number of the changes that occurred in recent years really anger people. Let us consider the example of some individuals - mainly women - who might have begun working at 20 years of age and who might later have been out of employment for ten or 15 years. They really become angry when they discover that they are not entitled to full pensions. If they had not started work until the age of 55 years, they would be entitled to the full State pension because it is averaged out over their working lives. That is wrong. This matter must be revisited because it is extremely unfair that someone who may have contributed for 40 years will receive less than a person who only paid contributions for ten years. I do not see how there is justice in this.

The Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, talks a good game and excels at presenting matters as if there are always benefits involved. People who do not use Dublin Bus are of the view that it offers a terrible service, while those who do use it are of the view that the service is quite good. In the case of the Minister's Department, the opposite is true. Those who engage with it know that some of the changes will have a very direct negative impact on them, while those who do not engage with it are of the view that these reforms are fantastic. In the light of the Minister's glowing praise of the Bill and her claims that it will be all things to all people, I have reached the conclusion that there is something hidden in its provisions. I reserve my position on it because I know what is likely to happen.

See this speech in context