Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for explaining that. I just lost a minute to that explanation, so I will take it back.

The question of inequality for pensioners has been well rehearsed in the House. Each of these amendments asks for a report. Can we have that report? Can we not for once walk away from the Chamber having been told that we will get it and then actually get it? I do not know how many times this issue has been raised by various Deputies during Questions on Promised Legislation throughout the year only for there to have been no response. The then Minister could conduct a campaign against what he called welfare cheats, most of whom were found not to have been cheating at all, just to ensure that he got the leadership. They were probably over-claiming by errors that were often made on the part of departmental staff.

I wish to discuss the women who suffered because they made their homes prior to 1994. It is a bit like saying that they were worth something after 1994 but were worthless before it, even though they were doing the same job, namely, rearing and washing children, cleaning, cooking, looking after children's health and ensuring that there they were ready to go out into society as the next generation of workers. They made their homes and looked after the elderly, the sick and the disabled. If they did that after 1994, the State will look after them. If they did it prior to 1994, they can go to hell. We all know why. It was carefully mapped out by civil servants and the troika so that the impact of people retiring would hit immediately by 2013 or 2014 under this measure whereas, for those who retired in 1994, it would be many years before it would hit.

It is all about saving pennies at the expense of ordinary people for no other reason than to bail out the banks.

There is a longer-term ambition on the part of the Government to reduce pensions and the awards received by people who have worked all of their lives, to lengthen people's working lives and force people away from a transitionary year so that they have to sign on for jobseeker's allowance. There was a little bit of good news today, whereby public servants can, if they choose, work until they are 70 years of age, but that must remain a choice rather than a compulsion. We would argue that the transitionary pension has to be restored.

I do not know if it will be possible to address all of those issues, because they are all a result of what happened in 2012. The question of the transitionary pension, people being forced to work longer and having to sign on for jobseeker's allowance and being worthless prior to 1994 as a homemaker but valued afterwards all need to be addressed. The Bill is a mechanism to penalise a sector of society in order to save coppers. This has to be utterly condemned. It is a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of gender and age.

As I said to the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, should we be in a position to take a case to a European Court, I have no doubt that we would emphatically win it. I hope we do not have to do that, but I would encourage all pensioners to help the Minister to find the money. She said she would find the money within 12 months, if possible. They should get outside the gate on a date in the new year and protest again. That will help the Minister to find the money. She will listen, her eyes will open and she and the rest of the Cabinet will find the money somewhere to address this grave injustice.

See this speech in context