John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a few points about the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill and to express my support for the legislation. I will direct some points to the Minister given that she is present.

There can be no doubt that in recent years, as most of the previous speakers have alluded, the economic collapse in Europe and further afield has had a tremendous impact on the pension provisions people had planned for their retirement. Whether people were part of schemes established by their employers or self-employed people who made provisions either weekly or monthly themselves, in many instances they now find themselves facing into a future where what they perceived to be their likely pension is under threat to say the very least. Pensions by their very nature are deferred remuneration and have always been treated as such in terms of contributions made by employers over the years. I welcome the provisions in the legislation which deal with the insolvency directive from the EU and follow on from the European Court of Justice, ECJ, judgment in the Waterford Crystal case in recent months. The Minister outlined the case in her speech and went into the detail of the various arrangements that will apply where pension schemes are insolvent, such as where employers are insolvent or in cases where the scheme is insolvent but the employer remains in business.

I was struck by the reference made by the previous speaker to the injustice of people having greatly reduced or no pension provision who made contributions throughout their working life. The reality is that some people, in particular the self employed, in recent years found in some instances that having made the contribution over their working life they have very little if any pension at the end of it. The legislation does not deal with people in that category but injustice would apply to them as well as to those who were in defined-benefit schemes run by various businesses around the country such as the Waterford Crystal workers.

I echo the view, expressed strongly by Deputy Mitchell, on the impact of the pension levy, which is substantial. Its impact on private pensions is misunderstood. It was clearly said on the introduction of the levy that it would be for a set period and for a particular purpose. The purpose has largely worked but it is important that the levy would be removed because that was the intention when it was introduced. It is a significant burden to say the least, in particular on those who are close to retirement age who will see a significant reduction in their overall pension pot as a result of the levy. The Government must ensure the levy is removed given that it was the stated intention to do so.

I am sure the Minister has received correspondence from the Senior Citizens Parliament, which pointed out the issue of the right of audience which has been raised also by previous speakers. They referred to the right existing until the 1970s. Some of the pension provisions, particularly for the State pension, that existed until the 1970s were to say the least not desirable. Pension boards around the country acted in an arbitrary fashion in terms of who got a pension and who did not. Nobody suggests that should re-emerge but perhaps the Minister might be in a position to reconsider the potential impact of the legislation in reducing pensions on which people were relying, who might be close to pension age, and to introduce some mechanism for those concerns to be directly addressed. Perhaps the Minister would do so in her concluding remarks.

See this speech in context