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

I support the amendment put forward by my colleague, Deputy O'Dea. Many of these amendments are very similar and it is worth pointing out they arise from the Committee Stage debate that we had. We withdrew the amendments on that Stage with a view to having amendments that reflected what the Minister said. This is important, as I am not bothered about the amendments but rather the action the Minister has said she will take. That is the key. Most of these amendments were written around what the Minister said on Committee Stage.

This matter has been around the committee dealing with social protection for well over a year.

There was an extensive debate on Committee Stage of the Bill, at which point talk emerged of a report. The proposal put forward was that the anomalies which have arisen as a result of the 2012 changes would be dealt with as part of the move from a total averaging system to a total contribution system. The then Minister spoke about bringing forward a report, but the report he envisaged was on a new pensions total contribution system.

Significant progress has been made on this issue in the past year in so far as the Minister, Deputy Doherty, has identified the 42,000 people who were affected by the 2012 changes, two thirds of them women, and undertaken to deal with them as a specific individual cohort, separate from the roll-out of a new pension scheme. That is a significant advance on what we were looking at 12 months ago. There is now clarification that this is a stand-alone issue which uniquely impacts those people who were affected by the 2012 changes. We often talk about winners and losers when discussing a particular provision or measure, but there are no winners among these people. It is clearly unfair that they should be entitled to less than those who qualified for their pensions earlier. We cannot contemplate a system where there is an unfairness that leads to a large cohort of people losing out.

The Minister appeared before the joint committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection several weeks before the budget. In the course of our discussion, she asked members to identify a number of priority issues that she might be able to effect in the budget. As Chairman, my concluding remarks to her, after a long debate, were that the two issues of most importance were those on which we had issued reports to her, namely, the position of lone parents and the anomaly in entitlement to the contributory State pension. These were clearly identified as the two most significant issues that had emerged during the course of the committee's work. I was consequently disappointed when budget day came and the issue of the anomaly, which we had specifically raised, both in the Dáil and in committee, was not addressed in any way. I am glad that progress has since been made such that this group has been identified and the Minister has given clear indications that she will progress a solution for the group separate to the rolling out of a new total contribution pension system. That the matter is to be dealt with separately, as a stand-alone issue, is a vital consideration.

To clarify, the Minister said specifically at the committee meeting that she would present a report on the matter to the next relevant Cabinet sub-committee, following which she would take it to the very next Cabinet meeting and thereafter publish it. It was in this context that members of the committee who were in attendance did not press amendments and undertook to draft new proposals that would reflect the undertaking given by the Minister. We do not want to wait three months or six months for that undertaking to be delivered. The Minister was very specific in giving us that commitment and, as such, her reputation is on the line. She gave a clear public undertaking to the committee and to individuals members and we wish to hold her to account for it. The issue has gone on too long. Part of the reason for her proposing to present the report to the sub-committee, the Minister told us, was that additional moneys would be required to implement its recommendations. That was clearly set out as a consideration in the timeframe she proposed for dealing with the matter.

These amendments are reflective of that timeline. The Minister was to take the report to the relevant sub-committee and immediately thereafter to Cabinet. We hope the report she presents includes specific recommendations and will facilitate immediate change. On the question of more money being required, the reality is that, most years, savings are made in the Department. We cannot wait until the end of this year or until next year's budget before addressing the unfairness that was imposed on these people. A timeline must be set out for how they can recover the money they have lost. Parity must be re-established such that they are receiving the same level of funding as are those who retired before 2012. While publishing the report in the timely fashion the Minister has indicated she will do is important, the content and detail of that report are of equal importance. It must clearly show how we are to bring people up to the level of payment they would have received had the 2012 changes not been made. The committee was very specific in its report that the first step should be to suspend the 2012 changes, after which a discussion can take place on how to restore parity.

I urge the Minister of State to accept amendment No. 4, because it is exactly reflective of what the Minister has said she intends to do. There is no conflict between what she has proposed and what is in the amendment. The Bill that is passed by these Houses should reflect what is not just the will of the Oireachtas but also what the Minister has committed to doing.

See this speech in context