Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has just stated: "The over-riding priority for the State in this area is to ensure pensioners and members of pension schemes are protected and the future viability and sustainability of their schemes is ensured and made safer." We all share that objective but the Government keeps long-fingering it, which is no comfort to those pensioners in schemes where the management is making decisions such as those made by INM, and also by Waterford Crystal way back, when the same dangers about which Deputy Mary Butler spoke were evident. Nothing was done then to change the law, or only very small changes were made, yet this is the same law that allowed INM and many other companies to do this.

The point about the INM case is that it helped to articulate what is happening in many smaller companies throughout the country and what has happened to many thousands of people, yet we still have not put the protections in place and we keep pushing it out for another six months. I do not know what it is about this Government's attitude to Deputy Willie O'Dea's legislation. We were here ten days ago discussing Deputy Willie O'Dea's issues around the fair deal scheme and the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, wanted six months to deal with them. Tonight, the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, has committed to having a report from the Pensions Board within six months. Many people do not have that six months because decisions are going to be made about their futures.

This is increasingly a country where people do not want to get old because they no longer have the guarantees that were associated with a working life, with putting in the hours, with doing the days and the nights, and, at the end of it, having a pension to look forward to, which was paid at age 65 years. We have given that up in recent years and people no longer even have that guarantee.

The worst possible thing has been happening. People have not been given the chance to put the pot back together. This is the pot that they did nothing to destroy. People in their 60s are being told that nothing is available or that what is available is only minimal. They do not have the chance to put the pot back together, even though they did not destroy it in the first place. Then they end up coming to the State.

The Minister has spoken on many occasions about this as one of the greatest challenges facing the country, yet his Department keeps asking for more time. We do not have time. I regret that the Minister has decided to oppose the Bill. Deputy Willie O'Dea has been working on this for approximately 18 months. This is not something he has come to only lately. The Minister might disagree with Deputy Willie O'Dea's politics, but he cannot disagree with his technical knowledge and understanding of pensions and accountancy. It is regrettable that the Minister has decided to oppose the Bill rather than allow it to go to Committee Stage, where he could take the ideas of Deputy Willie Penrose on board. Deputy Willie Penrose has some good ideas and has done much good work. The Minister should try to come up with a shared ambition on Committee Stage around pension protection.

We are almost one year on from the general election and one year into new politics. I am sceptical about it and unsure whether it is delivering. However, it might start tonight. The House has said that we need to do something about pensions. The Government disagrees and suggests that it needs more time. The House is about to say that we want something done about pensions on behalf of the people who put us here, on behalf of the people who are being left without a pension or a scheme. The same people see those in management in these companies going off with big packages. I am not suggesting this Bill is the perfect article. Let us consider what happened in the United Kingdom with the Arcadia Group. That was one of the worst cases. We need to ensure the same thing does not happen here.

The Minister also has responsibility for another aspect of pensions. I am referring to women who have paid pension contributions over the years and who took time out of work to raise families or to go back into the home. These women have been left short in their pension as a result. They have been penalised for having taken time away from the workplace to rear a family. They were not penalised by the Minister but by his predecessor, the former Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, in one of the cruellest actions of the last Government. This is only now becoming apparent as women are coming to retirement age or pension age. They find they are being fleeced by the State for doing the job of the State on many occasions, either by caring for children or parents. We have all seen it. Any Deputy worth his or her salt has met it on a daily basis. We have to do something about it.

It is regrettable that the Minister is opposing the Bill. However, the will of the House to deal with pensions as a matter of urgency will prevail. This is the first time that new politics might deliver for the people outside the House. We should let the committee deal with the concerns expressed by the Minister as well as with the inputs from Deputies Willie Penrose and John Brady. The Minister should allow Deputy Willie O'Dea to work on this issue on an all-party basis with the roadmap he has laid out.

See this speech in context