Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is no accident that everybody seized on the breezy opening statement that economic recovery is now firmly established because of course that is not true for so many citizens, against a backdrop of monstrous rents, precarious living situations for so many and casual and precarious work. It is somewhat ironic that years ago, when economic resources were far less than they are now, the basics, namely, a roof over one's head, access to health care when one was sick, the idea of a job in which one would progress and where one would end up with a pension were better delivered than is the case at present.

It is ironic that when one reads the opening part of the statement in respect of housing we hear that the supply response has been insufficient to keep pace with demand. It is almost as if the Government is washing its hands of it, as if it were some act of God that had nothing to do with Government policy. It is a little frightening to see that the solution to the housing problem is the publication of an action plan for housing when in November 2014 the Social Housing Strategy 2020 was produced. We must see some work being done rather than just reports being issued.

While I welcome those parts of the report that deal with the issue of the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, being addressed, it does not get to the heart of many of the problems in the public service involving really low rates of start-up pay for teachers, gardaí, nurses and so on. Even county councillors appeared before the Ministers to deal with the stipends and expenses they get, which are not keeping apace with the economic demands on citizens at present. Recovery is not firmly established for many people and when one judges a society, one must do so on what it can deliver for its citizens. There used to be a lot of pride in the idea of looking after people from the cradle to the grave.

I wish to give particular consideration to older citizens and the idea that one would have a job in which one could contribute to a pension, after which one could retire on a decent standard of living. This concept is under threat, even for the many hundreds of thousands of citizens who have been paying into pension funds all of their working lives. Members were discussing this issue in the debate last night on the social protection Estimates, but it and the decisions made on it are firmly in the charge of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I refer, for example, to the case of the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, where the pension fund was wound up overnight last month and people were told they essentially were being left with nothing. How is that an economic recovery, when the decision was based on three months' bond yields? The decision was based on three months' bond yields against all the best advice on long-term strategy and investment. Moreover, the Minister's approval was required for this move but I do not believe it was sought and I am pretty sure the Minister probably did not grant it. In addition, one must factor in that if staff members move to the single public service pension scheme, SPSPS, some revisions to the Minister's expenditure forecasts must be made because it will place a demand on the Exchequer that is not factored into these figures or into the summer economic statement. These contingencies must be worked in, but there are no contingencies, for example, regarding Brexit and how it will have an impact on the finances. I thought the points made by Deputy Broughan were highly pertinent in this regard. One must see issues in the context of the team with which one is dealing on the other side, as well as unforeseen events. However, Brexit potentially is a foreseen event that could be factored in but it is not being addressed in that regard.

When Members consider how public expenditure is managed and the social wage, the way in which pensioners are treated is a key part. What consideration has been given, in the context of the Estimates, to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform taking on pensioner liabilities pertaining to the CRC plan or any other pension plans that decide to follow a similar path if the CRC gets away with it? How can it be allowed that an organisation which provides a crucial public service and is funded by public money basically can wind up a pension scheme unilaterally and state those affected are to be transferred to the SPSPS? I reiterate this is a potential drain on the Exchequer when that organisation has resources at its disposal, including a capital development fund of €12 million that easily could be used to plug the relatively small gap, rather than this amount ending up back on the public purse. Why does the CRC need new buildings? If there is a problem in the pension fund, surely there are other ways to address that matter. When Members consider the summer economic statement, they must give space for the possibility that if pension funds are allowed to wind up in this way, there will be an avalanche of other defined benefit schemes going down the same road. Moreover, the State and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will be obliged to pick up the pieces in this regard.

In conclusion, I believe that in some ways, Members are dealing with the fact that the neoliberal model does not really work. Members must put people and public services first and when they deal with tax cuts and put that upfront, they must give consideration to the social wage and what people get in terms of public services. In the Irish context, we are far behind our European peers in this regard and these are the issues that must be addressed if Members are to deliver the quality of life they all believe citizens deserve from the cradle right through to their retirement years which, given the ageing population, is a huge area of concern.

See this speech in context