Seanad debates
Wednesday, 3 May 2006
National Pensions Reserve Fund: Motion.
6:00 pm
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
I want to support a couple of points which have already been made. The National Pensions Reserve Fund has indicated its willingness to invest moneys in infrastructure in Ireland. An amount of money has been suggested in that regard, but that offer has not been taken up by any Department to date. We know the fund has invested money in projects throughout the world, but it should invest money in the State, especially at a time when investment in infrastructure is needed.
Given that various proposals have been made for projects in which private sector investment is required, it seems ideal for the fund to invest its money in infrastructural projects in Ireland. Certain types of projects, including roads projects, have already been mentioned. There is no doubt that there are projects in this country which would benefit from investment by the fund.
Another issue raised by Senators is the need for ethical considerations to be taken into account when investment decisions are being taken by the fund. I support calls for something to be done in that regard.
Last week I also raised the issue of pensions for councillors. I was at the Local Authority Managers Association, LAMA, conference and the argument was made that councillors were being paid a representational payment, in effect a salary because tax and PRSI are deducted. I looked at the definition of employment recently, regardless of whether somebody is self-employed or working for somebody else. Going through the different criteria listed in a leaflet published by the Revenue Commissioners, I concluded that the courts would determine that councillors were actually employees.
For all those reasons, if councillors were to take a legal challenge they probably would be vindicated in asserting that they are employees and, as such, are entitled to pensions. It is not as if they are just expecting a pension. What is being proposed is that they should pay their contributions. The money involved would not be much more than the gratuity they receive at present. The argument that they are not employees is greatly undermined by the fact that if a councillor is involved in other employment he or she gets very little as regards the so-called representational payment, because so much of this is paid in tax. I thought this debate might provide a good opportunity to raise this issue and perhaps the Minister of State might relay these sentiments to the Government.
No comments