Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

There is quite a range of amendments in this group and many of them involve complex issues which need time that we obviously do not have. I agree with the point made by Deputy O'Dea that the flat percentage being proposed by the Minister does not give any recognition to some important variable factors, such as length of pensionable service, the amount the person contributed over his or her working life or the age of the person on retirement. All of these variables form part of the calculation to arrive at the amount of pension and should in some way be factored into this scenario in order to provide equity.

There are some issues at stake that are covered by this group of amendments. What the Minister is seeking to do is to guarantee a certain threshold of benefits and also to alter the current situation in which anybody in receipt of a lower pension is not eligible for any cut. However, now a cut would be permissible for those on amounts over €12,000. A 20% reduction would apply to those on pensions of €60,000 or more. This lets high earners off the hook. One of the amendments in this group provides for a greater hit for those with pensions in six figures, over €100,000. The amendments propose a reduction of 50% in that scenario. It would be fairer to hit the high earners on lucrative pension schemes. This would meet the definition of proportionality far better than hitting somebody on the lower level.

A pension of €12,000 or slightly above that is quite low. I note the Minister has said that in many instances people would also be in receipt of a State pension and their pension therefore would amount to €24,000. That may not be the case, however, because the person may not be in receipt of a State pension. Some of my amendments agree that the appropriate figure is €24,000, which is two-thirds of the current average industrial wage. Guaranteeing a pension at that level and not allowing it be cut is appropriate in the current circumstances, but I am not sure the Bill as constituted does this, because some people would not be in receipt of a State pension.

Proportionality is important here. The implication is that somehow existing pensioners have got off lightly in the defined benefit pension crisis. The Minister could argue that point, but it must be taken into account that many pension schemes have not been paying consumer price index hikes in their pension provision over the past number of years. Many of the big schemes do not provide for this. For example, the ESB, the banks, the airport schemes and so on have frozen pensions for their employees, although there is some relief in that regard currently. Therefore, de facto, pensioners have contributed to moneys going back into the pot to be shared or to keep others afloat. If inflation was at 2%, over a ten year period €100 would only provide the purchasing equivalent of approximately €60. These people have therefore made a contribution, and we must look at the issue more closely.

The point is that when this legislation is passed, the position of deferred pensioners will be improved compared to what it is today. However, it will not be as good as it was in 2009. Those points have been well articulated here. Previously they were treated in the pensioner category, but as a result of the change in 2009 they have been included with the others. We will probably not have time to deal with the points made in the significant correspondence we got from many people in regard to the later amendments, but those points should be taken on board. Unfortunately, they do not appear to have been; nor have those points regarding right of audience and so on.

See this speech in context