Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. As she outlined, the Bill provides for a range of amendments to the social welfare Acts, including, for the first time, extending PRSI contributions to individuals who have an income from a trade or profession. However, it does not address the long-term deficit in the Social Insurance Fund and the range of benefits it should support, while the self-employed will continue to be excluded from a range of benefits. The Fianna Fáil Party position on pensions is that we require a pensions structure which is financially sustainable and socially adequate.

The Bill also includes changes to the governance of the Pensions Board and gives the board powers to wind up a pension scheme in certain circumstances. However, it fails to address the need for greater protection for beneficiaries when a pension scheme winds up and does not address the fact that only 54% of the workforce has pension coverage, an issue to which I will return presently.

The Bill proposes changes to the jobseeker's allowance scheme to cater for the transition of persons who no longer qualify for one-parent family payment. The Government decided that for new applicants, as of 3 May 2012, the maximum age limit of the youngest child for receipt of the one-parent family payment would reduce to 12 years and the limit would eventually reduce to seven years in 2014. The Minister gave an undertaking that she would only proceed with the measure to reduce the upper age limit to seven years in the event that she secured a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of a system of child care by the time of this year's budget. The issue of child care provision was shown in sharp relief in a recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme. All sorts of kites have been flown on the issue of child benefit. We heard, for example, that the payment could be reduced or reallocated to pay for the provision of additional child care places or other child care services. In light of the sensitivities associated with this issue, I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate her current thinking on this matter and whether she has received a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of a system of child care.

I welcome the measure to provide index information relating to births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships and the provision to facilitate online access to this information. I also welcome the decision to give part-time firefighters an entitlement to jobseeker's payments, a measure for which Fianna Fáil has long campaigned. Until now, many retained firefighters were deemed ineligible for jobseeker's allowance on the ground that they were not available for or seeking work. Under the legislation, if a person works five days as a firefighter, he or she will receive five days of jobseeker's benefit. I am curious to ascertain the Minister's thinking on the position of the acting profession. I speak as a member of Irish Actors Equity, which primarily arises from my broadcasting activity rather than any acting prowess I may have. As the Minister is aware, I am surrounded by actors in this House and the other House and I defer to their greater wisdom. I ask for an update on this issue on which I campaigned some years ago when Irish Actors Equity argued that social welfare legislation was anomalous in that actors were not deemed to be available for work. Of the approximately 1,500 members of Irish Actors Equity, approximately two thirds do not have acting work at any one time but must survive without assistance. Has the Minister received representations in this regard? Does she have sympathy with members of the acting profession?

I do not know the reason firefighters have been singled out. I was informed earlier when I asked - perhaps naively - why this was the case, that firefighters were probably able to mount a better lobby than the acting profession. If that is the case, so be it but I would be grateful if the Minister were to outline her position on the matter because the current position is unfair. I recall that lollipop men and women were also deemed to be unavailable for work. In light of the uncertain nature of employment in the acting profession, some understanding should be shown of the position in which actors find themselves. After all, Ireland prides itself on its actors and literary giants and we like to be associated with them when they are winning awards. We should address the problem that arises when actors are unable to finance themselves because they cannot work.

On the governance, structure and power of the Pensions Board, the Bill gives the board a new power to wind up a pension scheme where it is under-funded, the trustees and employer are not in a position to adopt a funding proposal and the trustees fail to comply with a direction to restructure scheme benefits. This power needs to be used judiciously. The provision providing for a newspaper notification when a fund is being wound up at the direction of the new pensions authority is inadequate. Every effort should be made to notify the beneficiaries when it is proposed that a scheme be closed. Moreover, the period of 21 days' notice is not adequate, especially given the growing number of people who no longer read a newspaper. There was a time when politicians used to tremble in fear of what journalists might write about us. We are moving into an entirely new media age in which it no longer matters what journalists write because people no longer read newspapers. While politicians educate and inform themselves using all available media outlets, members of the public do not know what one is talking about when one mentions a particular story or article. This provision should be revisited because newspaper notifications may not be the best approach to this issue. Given the manner in which the media treat this House, it is no harm having diversity among the media.

The pensions council should have a stronger consumer focus. In particular, it should examine the issue of pension charges. The Minister and I exchanged views on this matter and I believe we are ad idem on it. One of the persistent criticisms levelled at the private pensions industry is that it is designed to make vast sums for the pension companies, fund managers, administrators and intermediaries. Frequently described as opaque and confusing, the industry offers mediocre to poor value for pension holders. I ask the Minister to comment. While I doubt her views on the issue have changed significantly in recent months, it is important that she place them on record. I am sure she is not only acutely aware of the problem but also intends to address it.

The status quo as regards pension priority orders remains. While the Government has stated it is committed to keeping defined benefits intact, the uncertain legislative framework is creating incentives to close defined benefit pension schemes. This will lead to outcomes which the Government has described as inequitable. The Government should act to prevent solvent firms from walking away from defined benefit schemes that are in deficit. The OECD recommends that a minimum of 90% funding should be achieved before a scheme can be closed in a case where the parent company is in financial health. To reflect more diverse working patterns the State should establish a national pension tracing service.

The Bill does not address pension coverage. According to the Pensions Board, only 54% of the workforce has pension coverage and there are wide disparities in coverage within the working population. For example, coverage in the public service stands at more than 90%, whereas it is very low in some areas of the private sector. The national pensions framework published by the previous Government in 2010 cites the examples of the hotel and restaurant sector where pension coverage is a miserly 23% and the wholesale and retail trade where it is 36%.

A survey on pensions found that of those who do not contribute to a pension, almost 80% indicated that the State pension will not meet their needs in retirement. Some 43% of respondents indicated they had not been offered access to a pension, despite the legal obligation on employers to offer employees access to a pension. Of the 43% of respondents who had not been offered access to a pension, almost 100% had never asked their employer about access to a pension. These figures highlight serious inadequacies in the system and major information gaps which the Department must address. Although awareness of the tax relief available for pension contributions is relatively high, at 73%, the majority of respondents were not aware of or incorrectly understood the amount of tax relief that applied to them.

Mandatory pensions should be given serious consideration. Among OECD countries, only Ireland and New Zealand do not have compulsory pension contributions. While most of the amendments are to be welcomed as progressive changes in how the Department of Social Protection and new pension authority conduct their business, the fundamental questions surrounding pension provision have yet to be answered by the Government.