Margaret Cox (Fianna Fail)

I am sorry. I was talking about SSIAs. It is a particularly important and attractive scheme. It was simple, clear and transparent. Everyone understood that whatever money was saved would be backed by the Government and that tax would only be paid on the interest. A number of weeks ago the Minister said he was considering the impact interest on SSIAs might have on means tests for social welfare payments. I hope he will be successful in that regard. It would be unfortunate if older people or those in receipt of social welfare lost out because they had earned interest on savings they had generated themselves. I hope the Minister wins that battle. The transparency and ease of SSIAs and the fact that they appealed to everyone should be taken into account by the Minister when he reviews pensions and in the Government's review of how we will face the challenge of 2025 when many more people will be entitled to pensions.

The voluntary nature of the personal retirement savings accounts is essential. I deal with many international companies who come to Ireland to recruit and to set up here. They are part of our economic success and contribute to our full employment. If we create a compulsory tax in order to provide for our pensions and make pension contributions non-voluntary we will ruin our competitiveness. Compulsory payments, whether by the employer or employee, will destroy the nature of voluntarism. We must create an environment where people see the value of contributing to a pension scheme, get value for money from their contributions and want to contribute. That is our challenge. We should not take the easy way out. In the review of 2006 it would not be helpful to decide that because only a small percentage of people have taken up PRSAs and are providing for the future, contributions should be made compulsory. Compulsory contributions by employers would create an additional tax on employment and compulsory contributions by employees would impose an additional tax on earnings. Such a decision would impact on our competitiveness. If, between now and 2006, PRSAs are found not to be as successful as the Government had hoped, I appeal to the Minister to be broad minded in addressing that issue and not to take the easy course of compulsion.

Education and awareness of PRSAs is essential. The Pensions Board's awareness campaign has been very successful. Nevertheless, we need to do more. We also need to focus on women. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, took cognisance of this issue. There is a huge gap in pension provision for women. Women work in part-time jobs, take time out to job share and take time out of the workforce completely to stay at home to look after children. For these reasons we lose out in making adequate pension provision. Some families do not have sufficient money to make pension contributions for the parent who is not the bread winner. The bread winner's pension may be funded by his employer and it is assumed that he will always be there.

That is not good enough anymore in this age of separation and divorce with families facing the challenge of moving into two households. There are too many women in this country who have no pension provision; what will they do when they reach the age of 65? They are mothers who have brought up their children and some of them went hungry to provide for children in poor circumstances. When they reach 65 they will face the old age pension or become a qualified dependant, which is not good enough. That is a challenge for the Government.

I wish to focus on a number of key issues the Minister might consider examining, perhaps not in the forthcoming budget but in subsequent budgets. There is a range of benefits and free schemes that are means tested for those over 65 but are free to those over 70. Will the Minister look at the issue of waste charges levied on old people living in reduced financial circumstances? They are forced to justify to a local authority why they should be entitled to a waiver scheme where one is available. Where a local authority may not have a waiver scheme, however, the elderly are being forced to pay waste charges of between €300 and €400 per annum. It is a significant amount of money for such people.

I understand that a pay-per-volume system is to be introduced but a minimum sum will still have to be paid for the provision of that waste disposal service. People aged 65 and over should not have to pay such charges at all. The Government should fund local authorities in order to provide that service free of charge to such people. Those over 65 are entitled to free travel and do not have to purchase a television licence, so they should not have to pay waste charges either.

The Minister referred to people over 65 continuing in the workforce, which is a great idea. Many people aged 65 or 66 are not ready to retire but they should not be obliged to pay tax at that age. If someone has worked all those years he or she should be exempt from income tax because he or she has already made a contribution. While not every cent may be tax free and there might have to be some limit, if people choose to work after 65 years of age why should they pay tax? I ask the Minister to consider that matter. It is a matter of choice, so if people in their 60s want to continue working they should be allowed to contribute to society. However, it should be recognised that by the time they get to 65 their tax contribution has been made so they should have the full benefit of the money they earn at that stage. If they choose to spend the money on their children, grandchildren or the wider society, that is their business. They should be allowed to keep all the money they earn. If we are prepared to allow people to retire at 65 we should not ask them to continue to provide for State services through taxation at that age.

The position of women within the social welfare system is unique and not enough is being done to recognise it. I have repeatedly come up against a rule in the social welfare system whereby a person can only receive one payment. Therefore, a widow looking after family members cannot claim a carer's allowance because she is in receipt of a widow's pension. When her husband was still alive she would have received a carer's allowance because she would be entitled to a disregard on her husband's salary or pension of approximately €250 per week. As a widow, however, she only receives one payment and so must choose between the widow's pension or the carer's allowance, whichever is greater. There is no equity in that situation, which arises due to a rule that one cannot receive more than one social welfare payment. It is unfair and inequitable so the Minister should consider changing the position in the next couple of years.

Pensions must be operated on a voluntary basis because an additional tax cannot be imposed on employment. If we are to maintain competitiveness and full employment we must ensure that our competitive level in every boardroom, when measured against boardrooms in the United States, India and elsewhere, is not penalised by taxation. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.

I thank the Minister for attending the House and I am glad of this opportunity to contribute to the debate.