Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)

-----I assume Senator John Kelly is firmly on the right wing of the Labour Party in that regard.

I wish to raise the issue of how we are paying for some of these initiatives, such as the cut in employers' PRSI. In the debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill we discussed the introduction of the pensions levy of 0.6% on some pension funds but not all. The members of my party and I regard this as inequitable. I note with interest that the Minister made her views known to the Minister for Finance in writing. I note also that the Government has not published the advice it received from various Departments on the introduction of the pensions levy. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten the House of her concerns and those of her Department on the negative impact the levy will have on pension provisions and on existing pension funds, which she has rightly stated are under ferocious pressure. Some 75% of defined benefit schemes are underfunded. As part of the pensions aspect of the Bill, the Minister mentioned earlier in the week that the Government is committed to pensions reform.

The Government has reformed pensions in a negative way by putting further pressure on schemes that do not have funds to pay the levy. The Minister is in receipt of a letter, a copy of which I received, from the retired aviation staff association but I do not know if she or her Department has yet responded. There are 45,000 members in the scheme. The letter stated that the scheme has 15,000 current members, 15,000 members with retained benefits and 15,000 annuitants, and underlines clearly the pressures that the scheme is under. The letter, which is also addressed to the Minister for Finance, states that it will be necessary to sell assets and reduce benefits to meet the levy. Has that letter been responded to? This scheme is an example of thousands of schemes across the country. It has assets in the region of €50 million which is not substantial for a scheme which has been in place for some time and an annual additional bill of €250,000. Where there is no surplus of cash assets in the scheme, that will simply be met by selling assets at a particularly difficult time in the market.

While certain aspects of the jobs initiative, which was previously to be a budget, are welcome the manner in which the Government is paying for it leaves much to be desired. As it is inequitable, it does not affect many of the self-employed schemes, proprietary directors, it has exempted ARFs and it does not include public sector pensions. If the Minister wished to introduce a levy it should have been imposed on all tax free cash payments at retirement across the board, whether one is in the public or private sector, a PAYE worker, or self-employed proprietary director. We have let many people off hook on this issue.

We are supportive of the Bill in the main because the Minister's job is to get people back to work. I wish to put a couple of issues to bed. Some Members on the Government side have commented on the level of social welfare payments. The level of payments since the first election I contested in 2007, and every single budget where increases were proposed, be they for the old age pension, jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit, were criticised at the time by the Government, then in Opposition, as not being enough. That is a fact. One can check the record and the election manifestoes. Leaving politics aside-----