Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste was not here for the first part of my contribution to this debate. I will carry on regardless, as they say. When I spoke last week, I urged the Minister of State with responsibility for forestry, who happened to be present in the absence of the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, to consider the introduction of an amendment to this short Bill. Even at this late stage, we should examine the possibility of restoring the €325 that was cut from the respite care grant. This is one of the steps that could be taken to improve this legislation. I highlighted other issues as well. I drew the Minister of State's attention to the online petition calling for the €325 to be restored and to the many comments left by those who had signed the petition. The people in question have explained much better than I could why the grant was so vital to them and their needs and why it needs to be restored in full. I hope the Tánaiste has had time to reflect on the matter since last Thursday, when the Second Stage debate on this Bill began.

I want to talk about some of the options that were available to the Government when it was drawing up last month's budget. The alternative budget presented by Sinn Féin set out a superior and better targeted way of spending the social welfare budget than that contained within the Government's budget. We recognised the plight of carers, those suffering fuel poverty, struggling working families and young people who are unequally subject to extremely low social welfare payment rates. Many young people are being driven out of this country by such rates. One of the proposals I outlined related to the change in the family income supplement payment. I said that an increase of 10% in the payment would cost €33 million. I called for the one-parent family payment income disregard to be increased to €120 rather than stalled at the current level of €90 as announced by the Tánaiste. While I welcomed the announcement - the Tánaiste had previously intended to cut the disregard to €70 - the increase I proposed would have brought the disregard back to the level where it was in the past. That would have cost €15.3 million. I also called for the restoration of equality for young jobseekers by giving them the full €188 payment over the period of two budgets. I said that this year's budget should have restored three weeks of the fuel allowance, which would have cost €23.9 million. I could list some other proposals in addition to those.

I do not believe the Government has gone far enough. I think there were alternatives within the moneys available to the Government, but it chose a different path. An alternative to the way the tax system works was also proposed. Sinn Féin outlined some of those proposals. We are not the only ones who made suggestions. A number of other groups did likewise. There is a difference between what is happening now and what has been happening. When I was first elected to this House, very few alternative budget proposals setting out how the Exchequer could be funded properly were laid before this House. At least now people are taking the time to look at alternatives. They are costing them as much as they can, and we are costing them as much as we can within the constraints of this House. Some Sinn Féin proposals that would have led to additional revenues were not included in our budget submission this year, not because we are opposed to them or because we have changed our minds on them, but because the Minister for Finance and his Department were not able, or perhaps were unwilling, to cost them. I urge the Tánaiste to ask the Minister for Finance to reconsider some of the proposals we have made and to instruct his Department to examine how much money could be raised from a wealth tax, for example. At least then this House could have a proper debate on the rights and wrongs of such a tax, by comparison with a property tax.

I am glad the Tánaiste is present now because I want to make another point before I finish up. She may recall that when we discussed the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill 2013, I advocated a very different priority order to govern how the restructuring of defined benefit pension schemes that are in deficit is wound up. It differed significantly from the slightly adjusted priority order that was being provided for in that legislation. I urge the Tánaiste to convert the Social Welfare Bill before the House into a social welfare and pensions Bill in order that the question of the priority order can be reconsidered. She will be aware that she has been lobbied in recent weeks by people who believe the current legislative framework continues to leave members of defined benefit schemes vulnerable to their expected pensions being almost entirely wiped out. Deferred members of schemes are particularly vulnerable in this regard, given their exclusion from the industrial relations mechanisms that generally influence the distribution of the burden of the schemes' restructuring. I am arguing, as I have done previously, that the Tánaiste should introduce amendments to the relevant legislation, for example to provide for a legal obligation that would ensure healthy employers live up to their pension promises in the first instance.

I will set out the priority order that I believe should be introduced to govern the restructuring or wind-up of defined benefit schemes that are in deficit. First, a PRSI contributions record that is sufficient to ensure eligibility for the full State pension should be purchased from the social insurance fund for every scheme member who has not attained such a record. Second, provision should be made for 100% of pensioners' benefits below €12,000, excluding post-retirement increases.

Third, active and deferred members under the age of 55 years should have dispersed to them the lower of 50% or €6,000 of their benefits or, if they are aged over 55 years, the lower of 75% or €9,000, excluding post-retirement increases. Fourth, I made a suggestion regarding 75% of pensioners' benefits exceeding the initial €12,000 up to a maximum of €30,000, excluding post-retirement increases. I also suggested that 75% of active and deferred members' benefits exceeding the initial sum up to a maximum of €30,000, excluding post-retirement increases, be the fifth round, as it were. The sixth round entailed the remaining benefits for pensioners, excluding post-retirement increases, the seventh entailed the active and deferred members' remaining benefits and the eighth related to the remaining pensioners and active and deferred members.

It is a complicated subject and, although the discussion was long, it was still truncated. Like most Social Welfare Bills, it was guillotined in the House following Committee Stage and we did not have as long a debate as we should have. We could have teased out the benefits of a scheme along the lines I suggested versus the one suggested by the Tánaiste. The Mercer report seemed to amalgamate both.

The effect of this priority would be to ensure a much fairer distribution of funds for everyone in the event of a wind-up or restructuring regardless of whether a pensioner was in payment, a deferred member or an active member. It would offer greater protection to deferred members of, for example, the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, or the Abbey Theatre. I urge the Minister to consider changing this Bill. I am not opposed to what is before us, as it is a simple proposal, but we should take this opportunity to deal with outstanding social welfare and pension issues.

See this speech in context