Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 25, before section 41, to insert the following new section:

"41.—The Principal Act is amended in section 27 by the insertion of the following new definition:

'"pension coverage" means the number of people who are covered by pension plans;'.".

As I said on Second Stage, the amendments to pensions are minor as far as I understand them. I am not sure how they will help to improve the pension payments of the thousands of people who have occupational pension schemes and I am disappointed that more is not being done in this regard.

I am also disappointed that the Pensions Board is not doing more to improve the lot of those who have pension schemes. I acknowledge the enormous report from the Pensions Board, which will be debated in this House in the near future, and I look forward to becoming involved with the Minister in discussions that may take place. I understand he will organise a forum shortly to which the members of the committee on family and social affairs will be invited, which I welcome. He recently met representatives of the pensions industry.

Much more must be done to help pensioners and those who are paying into pension schemes. The debate very unbalanced because it is about the pensions of the future. While it is essential to plan for the future pension provisions of workers, we are abdicating our responsibility to current pensioners and those who are still at work and paying into pension funds.

The Minister is trying to encourage young people like Senator McCarthy, and even younger people, to start providing for their pension. I am sure the Senator is not thinking about his pension, not to mention people younger than him. I would not encourage my sons, or anyone of that age, to start thinking about their pension. They have too many more important and pressing issues to deal with such as buying their first home or a car, and doing the things young people must do. After that, if they get married or become parents, there are other responsibilities with which they must deal.

It is wrong to focus on telling young people to prepare for their old age, and that by paying into a pension fund now they will have a decent pension when they retire. I do not know if this is true. I can only base my assumptions on the people who are at work today and who are coming up to pension age. Many people who are now retired and who paid into pension funds did what was suggested. Many were compelled to join pension schemes. One could not join many companies without being a member of their pension scheme. This was a type of mandatory pension scheme, which did not work. I would like to see a more balanced debate in favour of the pensioners of today and those who are approaching pension age. This Bill does nothing to address that issue.

The other day I mentioned providing some type of protection fund for pensioners, although it may not be working well in the UK. I understand the point the Minister made that people could become less responsible with funds because a protection scheme would be in place. If we imposed strong penalties on those who must access that protection fund, we will make people responsible. There are probably other areas in which we impose penalties on companies if they do not live up to certain standards. That issue must be considered. I agree we must provide for pensions for the future but we must be realistic and honest about it. We must, however, deal with people today which is, as the Minister knows, my problem.

There are many things we could do but I welcome the improvements made in the budget. The Minister for Finance took measures to ensure the wealthy in our country will no longer be able to put millions of euro into their pension funds and get tax relief. We heard of an individual who took €25 million tax-free from his or her pension, and he or she was not the only one to do so.

I wish to make an important point to the Minister. I said to his officials on one occasion that I could not get answers to questions. When interested parties from the pensions area appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, a question which was not answered was concerned the most an individual took from his or her pension fund as a tax-free lump sum. Nobody from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Finance, the Pensions Board or the pensions industry could answer that question. That is not good enough. The answer was provided in the Indecon report, namely, that at least two individuals took out a tax-free lump sums of €25 million from their pension funds. How did Indecon find the answer when officials from those Departments could not? It is not good enough that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas cannot get that information. Perhaps there are reasons for not providing that type of information. It was shocking when that information hit the headlines. How can we enact legislation if we are not aware of all the facts and of the abuses by certain people? If we do not enact legislation to ensure these abuses do not take place, then we are not doing the work we were elected to do.