John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I intend to share time with Deputy Michael Moynihan and Deputy Fleming.

During the course of this debate a number of political charges have been made against our party. I am not going to respond to them at this stage. I will leave that to Deputy O'Dea in the summing up.

Some of those listening to the debate might think this issue has not been discussed or highlighted. However, it has been brought up over several years. In particular, it was highlighted during last year's budget. The Joint Committee on Social Protection looked at this in significant detail over the course of the year. The purpose was to examine the matter in a timely fashion and make recommendations in advance of the budget. Deputy John Brady was on the committee and he understands the process. We did it faithfully and honestly. We did not simply publish a report and leave it at that.

I regret that the Minister is not in the Chamber now because I would like to address her directly on this point. In advance of the budget on 28 September, the Minister attended the committee. I raised this matter with her, and I have before me the transcript of the debate. It is not as though she was not familiar with the issue or that the issue had not been addressed in significant detail, because it had been. The Minister addressed the committee that day, and Deputy Brady will probably remember that during the course of her opening statement she said it would be of use to her in preparing the budget if two or three issues of concern to the committee were highlighted. On concluding the meeting, I put it to the Minister that the two issues of most significance to the committee were the two areas where we had prepared reports: the areas of pensions and lone parents. Let us make no mistake, the Minister was aware of the anomalies that existed and of the priorities of an all-party committee in which there was agreement on the issues. We made the issues clearly known.

I am disappointed by the outcome of the budget because this issue was not addressed in any sense. I listened today to the response of the Minister with great interest. She gave all the reasons this could not be done. I put on record that the pensions element of the social welfare budget is €7.5 billion, and yet we need approximately €60 million to address this issue in 2018. Are we really saying that these people who dropped out of the scheme and who were put on a new scheme in 2012 are to be left languishing? We have heard the Minister and the Taoiseach refer to how we need to introduce a new system. We talked about the anomalies that exist and, in the Taoiseach's own words, not doing things in a piecemeal manner, yet that is exactly what the 2012 changes were. They were decisions and actions taken in a piecemeal manner. Women have been adversely affected by 2:1. They had no choice and there was nothing they could do. They were already working and in the system. They are being treated differently simply because they got to pension age after 2012.

In her contribution tonight the Minister spoke clearly about the other schemes, including a contributory pension scheme versus a non-contributory pension scheme and what could be done. However, this would apply equally to people who were in the pension system before 2012. We have an anomaly of unfairness and it needs to be dealt with. We need to be clear in the House tonight when we discuss this issue. Many people have talked about the big picture and the changes that will come from moving from the averaging system to a new system. That does not necessarily address the cohort of people who have been adversely affected from 2012, because they may not be accommodated in the new system.

The committee was clear in its findings. We recognised that the averaging system had anomalies and was not working as intended. The Taoiseach, who was formerly the Minister for Social Protection, and the current Minister clearly indicated they were moving to a new system of total contributions. The committee made several recommendations. The most important was the recommendation that while the Minister was getting on with the job of developing a new system of pension payments based on total payments, the 2012 changes should be postponed, averted or rewound. Moreover, the people now caught in that category should be dealt with fairly. The committee clearly wanted a suspension of the changes made in 2012 while the new programme was rolled out.

On a personal note, I am sorry the Minister is not here today. I am disappointed with her comments on my party. I took personal offence when she said this party could not be trusted. I am Chairman of the committee that has worked closely with the current and previous Ministers. We have done nothing but treat the Ministers on the other side of the House with courtesy and respect. We have done our work as a committee in a diligent and fair manner. We have honoured the confidence and supply agreement. Not only have we carried it out to the letter, but also we have acted within the spirit of it. The Minister's comments should be withdrawn. This side of the House deserves an apology for those unwarranted remarks.

See this speech in context