Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I have failed to find the ubiquitous Fr. Healy during the week to explain to him one of the basics of negotiation — the day a person gets what he asks for is the day he should resign. For those of us who have dealt with Fr. Seán this is a moment to be treasured. Much as I love him dearly, he called it wrong this time.

I have spoken many times about the need to extend maternity leave and I welcomed that provision on the night of the budget. It is an important decision that has been universally greeted. We must now look at the issue of paid paternity leave. It is seldom recognised in commentary that the State requires a high birth rate so there must be pro-natal policies, even if only for self-preservation. If this will encourage people to have more children, it is good for society.

From a selfish perspective, it means that if the Minister and I live long enough, there will be somebody to pay our pensions. It is for these reasons we must ensure these measures are developed.

I wrote to the Minister for Finance before the budget on the question of support for blind persons and those with sight disabilities. I do not refer to the blind pension but to the fact that such persons do not have access to certain areas of support. One of these relates to car ownership. Before the introduction of the carer's allowance, no consideration was given, for obvious reasons, to a blind person owning a car. Now, however, blind people may have carers to drive their cars for them, but there is no support in this regard. The numbers involved are small and it would not be subject to abuse.

Will the Minister give careful consideration to providing a level of support to blind persons with cars driven by their carers, similar to the support given to those with other disabilities who are able to drive themselves? This would be a helpful measure. From my discussions with concerned parties, I understand the demand would not be very high and it is only fair that it should be provided.

This issue has only come onto the radar because people have more money as a consequence of the Celtic tiger. We now live in a more enlightened society where people with disabilities can contribute more and, thankfully, earn more. The only way to deal with the additional cost burden endured by blind persons who wish to use their cars is the provision of support via either carers, reductions in duty and excise or similar measures. I do not expect the Minister to get back to me on this today but I hope he is positive about developing such a system.

The Minister called again, as he does every time he comes to this House, for a national debate on the future of our pensions system. On the last occasion we discussed this matter in the House, I told the Minister of my consistent support for his views on pensions for everyone. I argued that for every year worked, there should be a year's pension contributions. Will the Minister include this issue in next week's partnership discussions? Representatives of all sides will be as difficult as each other in this regard. Nobody will be jumping up and down but the Minister should challenge everybody on this issue. There is no ethical argument that can undermine the idea of a year's pension contributions for a year's pay.

A major complexity is engendered by moving in this direction, however. I have observed the Minister's struggles to bring people along on this issue. After we last spoke on this, I considered whether there is an easy way of approaching it. I am not sure there is but I will offer a simplistic view. One of the great difficulties is in attaining some level of complementarity between different types of pensions, including considerations of whether particular types fit in snugly with others. In this context, I considered the situation that arose in Chile after the assassination of Salvador Allende. The entire pensions system effectively collapsed through the Pinochet years and there was no fund for state pensions. As a result, a private pension scheme was developed under the aegis of the state but administered by private pension funds. Under this system, workers' contributions are deducted on a weekly or monthly basis and placed in their personal funds. This is a concept we understand.

Chilean workers are informed on an annual basis of how much their fund has increased in the preceding year and are given the names of the company and the individual fund managers looking after their pensions. Moreover, information is also given on the other six companies that manage pension funds and how they have performed in the past 12 months. Workers need only tick a box to indicate their desire to change to a different fund manager. This works very well in so far as I have described it. I do not contend that it creates a huge pension for the individual; we are all aware that pension growth is very slow. However, the Chilean authorities have at least ensured that people contribute to their own pension funds under the aegis of the state. There is a certain level of regulation and people are given, on an annual basis, the opportunity to switch to a different fund manager.

How might such a system work here? If we were to start from scratch and have people make contributions on that basis, we would immediately encounter difficulties in regard to arrangements on maturity and how this scheme would relate to other pensions, PRSI and so on. The only way such a system could be implemented successfully is as some type of standalone operation with a significant disregard in the outcome of it. Workers would be attracted to such a scheme, which would grow during their years of work and in respect of which there would be a significant disregard of the earning, yield or capital arising from the pension fund.

It is a system worthy of consideration. I fully support what the Minister is trying to achieve and it is all the better if he can do it internally. However, the difficulty will arise from the complexities it creates. Is it possible to devise a simple approach to this matter? I am interested in the Minister's views on this. It is a challenge he has thrown out on at least three occasions. I ask him to target the social partners one at a time in this regard. I presume he will have an opportunity to make his case when the partnership talks begin. He should put this proposal to all the parties. IBEC will have immediate objections and the ICTU, my own group, will not be far behind. I have fought within the unions to move this issue forward. Furthermore, the Government will be slow to support the Minister.

The Minister should, however, begin by at least lobbing in the ball. If other parties choose to ignore the penalty spot and do something mad with the ball, there is nothing more to do. However, people will at least be challenged to respond and organise their arguments. Even if they ultimately decide they cannot support such measures, the Minister will have started at the leading edge to wear away some of the opposition. All parties, including the Government, employers, farmers, business, trade unions and voluntary organisations, will be forced to listen to each other. This is one of the great values of social partnership. There will be many on all sides who oppose new developments in this area and the chances are they will be rejected. However, a debate will be facilitated that has not yet taken place. It is only happening within the groups; there is no engagement between them. The time is right for such an engagement.

If the social partnership process is to continue, something new must come out of the latest discussions. Some issues must be tackled, including legislative measures regarding union recognition, about which I am aware the Minister is not keen. They must be dealt with, however. The strong words the Minister used on "Questions and Answers" during the week was a reassurance to many people who are unsure of the Government's objectives. We must ensure our dearly won conditions of service — at all levels, not only in regard to workers — are not eroded. Earlier in the week, I raised the idea of workers being paid €2 per hour due to a "miscommunication". We can deal with all these matters as we go along. I compliment the Minister on what he has done. It has been a very good budget in his area and I ask him to put some energy into the pensions debate yet again.