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

We are debating the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill of 2018. I had hoped and thought that this might be somewhat similar to the 2017 legislation, which is still before the relevant committee. That version contains some of the measures the Taoiseach used to scapegoat the unemployed - naming and shaming them. The latter is a theme he seems to have left behind since he became Taoiseach, although it was recently taken up with glee by a candidate in the presidential election. The 2017 legislation contains some measures to deal with the onslaught on the defined benefit pension scheme for workers. I am continually amazed and amused at how this Government is so slow and unwilling to speed up the protection that might be afforded by that Bill. It is looking after companies and that is the reason the Bill from last year is stuck instead of being before the House.

We know there are 700 schemes still in place, but hundreds have been savaged and closed. The most recent, which we discussed at the committee and in this House, is the scheme relating to Irish Life, a hugely profitable company that looks after other defined benefit pension schemes. The scheme was well in surplus and very healthy but the employer just decided to walk away from it. We have been waiting over a year and half for the legislation to which I refer and which, weak and all as it is, could have done something to protect workers on defined benefit schemes. The Minister stated that it is complex - I am sure it is - but given the changes in the original general scheme of that Bill and the current proposals, it is clear that it is not just a question of the proposals' complexity, it is also the lack of political will to challenge the companies that are decimating their workers' defined benefit schemes when there is absolutely no need for this.

It would be possible for the Minister to introduce some simple measures to help retired workers who were employed by semi-State companies. This could be of assistance to pensioners who have not had an increase in their pensions for over ten years, thousands of whom were employed by semi-State companies and who are faced with real problems as a result of decisions made by those companies not to fund their scheme to the degree that was needed and by rules relating to minimum funding standards. The underfunding of those schemes is often tied in with Government underfunding of the companies - such as, for example, what has happened with CIÉ in the past ten years of austerity - or with decisions made as a result of overall Government policy. It is the Government's fault that these people do not qualify for State pensions and suffer as a result of decisions and regulations made by the Department. We should try to remedy the suffering and injustice for these pensioners.

I want to make a few observations on the Bill before the house and then I will shut up. On the contributory pension schemes, I am happy that we have made progress in redressing the cuts implemented in 2013 by the former Minister, Deputy Burton, in respect of those who qualified for State contributory pensions. Not only did those changes mean thousands received reduced pensions, but they did not remove the blatant discrimination that women who had raised their families before 1994 faced. I congratulate the campaigners who revolted against those cuts by the previous Fine Gael-Labour Party Government, but it is still only a partial reversal as the deepest cut, the increase in the qualifying bands, remains. Even the proposed new method of calculation will not address that or the reduction that many suffered. We will still need to campaign to reverse all those cuts.

I am curious about the section that will remove some young people from the blatant discrimination they face when accessing jobseeker's allowance. It is outrageous that we still have three tiers of payment for young people. From the age of 18 to 24, a person gets €107.70; at 25 years old, he or she gets €152; at age 26 and over, he or she gets €198. Section 10 extends the existing legislative provisions in order to ensure that someone in the care of the State on attaining the age of 18 is not subject to age-related reduced rate payments. The same applies in respect of the supplementary welfare allowance. A person who has been in the care of the State is not subject to the reduced rate payments.

I note what Deputy O'Dea said about a sort of "Judge Judy" syndrome whereby young people are kept impoverished and just stay at home watching telly all day. That seems to be the object of this provision. Someone in the care of the State cannot be accused of sitting around watching telly all day, although perhaps that is exactly what one does when one is in the care of the State. I do not understand the logic of reviving it for some sections but not for others. It shows utter contempt for young people and sends out all the wrong messages in a society that speaks very frequently and proudly about how we are in recovery and how it is great that we are coming out of the dark ages, that we are all doing well and are slán abhaile. If that is the case, then we should scrap this injustice and also the discrimination that the previous austerity regime has inflicted on young people. It is shameful that we are maintaining this. It says a great deal about the snobbery of a Government that thinks a certain cohort of young people do not need as much money to live on as others who are close in age to them.

Deputy Mick Barry:I thank Deputy Bríd Smith for the extra three minutes and 43 seconds.

See this speech in context