Margaret Cox (Fianna Fail)

This is a rerun of the relative poverty argument of the people with more money versus those with less. The problem will be that those with more money will feel hard done by and they will stop making it. We will then become a country of little widgets with no entrepreneurial skills and people feeling there is no need to strive to do better for their children, their children's children, their country and their economy. We must continue to foster a competitive environment, a sense of recognition of success and entrepreneurship and a sense that it is equitable to provide for the less well off. We must strive to be all inclusive. Our systems must not be just for the wealthy and not just for the poor. If we cater only for the poor, there will not be enough money to look after them.

Some women start working at 18 years of age, while those who go to college might get their first job and make a lot of money a little later. At 29 years of age, many women begin to have children, and may choose to job-share or leave work altogether. They contribute less in PRSI and pension funds but make their contributions in another way by looking after the family for which they receive no recognition. On reaching 65 years of age, many may be dependent on a spouse. In other cases, such as those of divorcées, there may not be enough provision for old age. More concentration on this aspect of women's pensions is required, as is greater recognition of their contribution in this area.

From an employment point of view, the compulsory and mandatory nature of new provisions to provide for pensions in the future must not be perceived to be or become a tax on employment. Our country faces competitiveness challenges on a daily basis. We are moving away from a country where it is easy to run a business, and people are encouraged to do so, to one where businesses are forced to fight daily with the bureaucracy and regulations forced upon them. It is impossible to run a small or medium-sized enterprise, creating employment for five to 40 people, and not be driven crazy dealing with this and that Department or regulation and paying tax. The proposed solution to the pension problem will be perceived as a tax on employment and will result in no employment and, therefore, a bigger pension problem.

While I did not read the Small Firms Association's comments on this issue, I read those of the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association. I also know about this from my experience as owner-manager of a small company with a turnover of €6 million, 50 people employed and an annual wage bill of €1 million. On top of the 10.75% PRSI contribution, I may now be expected to pay more money for employees' pension provisions. This is not my responsibility. It is my responsibility to participate in it but not, as an employer, to be the main provider. If this tax on employment is introduced, the multinationals will go out the door. Most multinational employers provide fantastic pension schemes for their employees in terms of contributions. I will not get into the argument about how pensions are managed. However, if asked as an employer to provide for pensions, my reply will be that I already pay my wage bill, PRSI and a pension contribution of between 5% and 10% of wage costs as part of my employees' remuneration package. To have additional mandatory costs would not make sense. Organisations must be allowed to choose what to do in this area and should not be forced on a particular course. If companies are not forced to do this in Switzerland, Scotland or China, then they will choose to locate in those countries.

A mandatory scheme will not work but packaging and marketing will. Let us produce a documentary, send a copy to all tax-registered companies and ask them to play it. A CD could be sent to every house, just as we sent out iodine tablets, registration forms from the Adoption Board and so on. The CD could be sent to everyone with a PPS number. People should be told about the reality of reaching the age of 65 and having only €200 weekly. People aged 40 should be told how much they will be able to buy in 20 years time, in 2025, even if they have some sort of pension arrangement. Matters should be spelled out more clearly for people, so that they understand what is at issue. I do not know what it will cost to have the lifestyle I want when I am 65. I have not thought about that because I am too busy rearing a family to worry about it. I would like to sit down on a Tuesday night at 8.30 p.m. and watch on prime time television a half-hour documentary, paid for by the State. It could be paid for through advertising, as long as people are shown the reality.

The means in which pensions are organised should also be made clear. If a sum of €10 is deducted weekly from my wages towards my pension, that is State-subsidised by means of taxation and by the 10.75% PRSI paid by the employer, as well as the 8.75% PRSI I pay as an employee. All that needs to be outlined.

Regarding SSIAs, a great number of people have found over the past four or five years that they can save €254 monthly. As a couple, my husband and I have been saving that. I did not even notice it gone from my income. I am now thinking about what else I can put that money into because I do not want to stop saving it when the SSIA scheme ends. I might have great fun spending the €19,000 I will get in my back pocket but I want to keep saving €254 monthly. However, the savings scheme must be marketed to me as something worthwhile for me and my future. Marketing is the essence.

The Pensions Board is doing a reasonable job in some areas but it needs to make people aware of problems. As an owner-manager of a small business providing employment, I ask the Minister not to make the contributions in question mandatory because if that were the case it would not be worth doing business in this country. We must provide for a proper economy in the future.