Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I did not mislead the Dáil last week on Sinn Féin's health policies. Deputy Gerry Adams is the great misleader in Irish politics, and let nobody be in doubt about that. Last week he claimed it would cost €691 billion alone for the health service to stand still. He also claimed that his budget proposals which would have provided an extra €450 million were on top of this. I have read Sinn Féin's budget proposal again and that is not what it states. I invite anyone who is independent on these matters to scrutinise it as it demonstrates once again that Sinn Féin's policy is like asking people to buy a pig in a poke. When one goes through it, the figures simply do not add up. I will not mention the €2 billion of tax increases Sinn Féin proposed imposing on people, with 14 different tax increases on everything from betting, inheritances, pensions and employment.

It is important to understand there are different types of pensions paid by the State: there is the public service pension paid to public servants, the non-contributory State pension which is means tested and the contributory State pension. This issue relates only to one of them, the contributory State pension. It works like any other contributory pension such as the pensions Deputies are paid, as well as people across the public and private sectors. The amount of pension is related to the number of contributions one has made. It is normal in workplaces for someone to have to work for 40 years to qualify for a full pension or, in some cases, 30 years and to make contributions into the pension fund for each of those years. That is how a contributory pension works.

Sinn Féin's pre-budget document proposed to reverse one set of changes, namely, the ones made in 2012. However, if one were to reverse those changes, it would not give the people in question a full pension either because even before 2012, contributions were banded in a particular way, which gave people with less than 48 contributions on average less than a full pension. As is so often the case when we discuss this issue, it is not as straightforward as people want to make it out to be. It is very complicated. If we are to make changes, they should not be piecemeal. We should understand what they are, how much they would cost, how they would affect individuals and different groups in society and the knock-on effects they might have. To help with a rational discussion of this the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, will publish the actuarial review of the PRSI or Social Insurance Fund which will help to inform the debate. If we care about the pensioners of today and the future, it is most important that we ensure the Social Insurance Fund does not become bankrupt. It was in deficit for years. When I became Minister for Social Protection, because of the recovery in the economy it went back into surplus but the actuarial analysis shows that it will return to being in deficit again in coming years. We will do nothing for any pensioner if we make changes now or in the future that will bankrupt the fund. We must ensure the amount of money coming in from contributions from people paying PRSI today will be enough to match what the State pays out in pensions and other benefits.

See this speech in context