Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

No matter how well prepared or steeled one is for what happens inside this House, sometimes the mind boggles at the depth of cynicism and the degree to which brass necks are ubiquitous. It has been well exposed around us during this debate. To begin with the Labour Party, it is welcome that it is supporting the motion. The party is calling for a reversal to the cuts but it should be clearly stated and acknowledged that when in government, Labour and its then Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, implemented these cuts, made these savage cuts to social protection payments and was responsible for disgusting attacks on the living standards of the most vulnerable in society, the young, the elderly and the disabled.

It is not the case that the bad impact of these reforms has been newly discovered. The Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, knew it at the time. There is a very good article in the Irish Examiner from 2014 entitled "No country for old women as females bear the brunt of pension cuts" which highlights how, as Minister, Deputy Burton had access to research from her Department which illustrated precisely how this would impact on older people and disproportionately on women. It was a disgusting and brutal cut.

Then there is Fianna Fáil which could have argued strongly on this during the budget negotiations with the Government. Its support, or at very least its abstention, is essential in order to pass the budget. Fianna Fáil could have made this a matter of principle and said that unless the Government resolved this issue and unless it undid the cut, it would not support the budget. It did not do that. More recently Fianna Fáil has discovered the issue and I welcome it putting down a motion on it but it has another chance on the matter. The motion is all very well - Solidarity-People Before Profit Alliance has an amendment to it but we will vote for the motion and it should pass - but Fianna Fáil knows, as does the Government and everyone else, that it does not make any difference in the real world, it only places some political pressure on the Government. The real question arises over the Social Welfare Bill. If Fianna Fáil was serious about having these cuts reversed it would say to the Government that it will not vote for the Social Welfare Bill unless it includes the reversal of the cuts in the Bill. It is that simple and that will be the test of Fianna Fáil's sincerity on this issue.

It was clear in the Taoiseach's response on Leaders' Questions last week and in the motion today that the Government's approach is to say that the matter is all very complicated. This week the Government's amendment argues that these are complex reforms which will require significant political, legal, technical and administrative challenges to be addressed. It is an effort to make it unintelligible for ordinary people and suggest that something really complicated is going on. Fundamentally, that is not the case. Age Action has produced an excellent briefing document which explains it simply for people. The National Women's Council of Ireland has done similar work on the subject.

The issue is simple. Since 2012, 36,000 people have had reduced pensions. Those affected are overwhelmingly women. As a result of the changes to the bands of contributions, about 50% of women who are eligible for the pension have been affected. We all have constituents who are retiring now who were compelled to give up work on marriage. Even today many women are unable to take up full-time paid work due to high child care costs and so on. It comes down to the Taoiseach's response last week at Leaders' Questions when he opposed the universal state pension on the basis that it would mean saying to people who had paid PRSI that their payments now counted for nothing. The point is that these people did make a contribution to society. They may not have paid PRSI, their contribution may have been one of caring and taking the role that the State should be playing in caring for elderly people, people with disabilities and for children, but everyone has made a contribution to society and that is why we should reject the whole notion of pension reform which is fundamentally an attack on workers, on pensions and on the delayed payment of wages to people and instead defend the idea of people having a pension and fight for socialist pension reform which would mean a universal state pension which would allow all to enjoy a high quality of life after retirement.

See this speech in context