Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. On Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.

Amendment No. 1 arises out of committee proceedings.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following:" (a) by the substitution of the following for the definition of "public office holder":

" 'public office holder' means a member of the European Parliament for a constituency in the State, being a member who is in receipt of the salary specified in section 2(2) of the European Parliament (Irish Constituency Members) Act 2009;",

and

(b) by the deletion of the definition of "public body".".

The Minister is welcome back to the House. This is the same old hobbyhorse, as the Minister has said himself.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who will second the amendment?

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are plenty of people here who will second it.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a formality. I ask the Senator to go ahead.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I pointed out on Committee Stage, and as the Minister has pointed out, nobody would buy an insurance policy which they could never draw down. Class K PRSI is just this. It is an insurance policy for which every Member of the Oireachtas, many in the public service and those who have unearned income are forced to pay 4% of their income and they get precisely nothing for it. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. If he does not do so I ask him to consider immediately after Christmas replacing the class K PRSI with a tax. I am quite happy to pay the 4%, and I am sure those who have unearned income are well able to pay the 4%. If we cannot do it this way, let us do it the other way.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for returning to the House for Report Stage. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here last week, but I was watching the debate online. On the issue of class K, the Minister specifically gave a commitment that councillors who had exceeded the age of 66 would no longer pay class K. He also made the comment that councillors who have been paying this since it was introduced through the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation would be given the option of buying back their stamps - in other words, the years they lost.

If a councillor has paid since 2010, which will be seven years ago by the time the Minister introduces the ministerial order to change this, will the Minister allow a retrospective measure with regard to the 4% already paid? As was pointed out by Senator Craughwell last week, any of us can buy a stamp for €660 per annum. The Minister will allow councillors to do this, but they have already paid 4% per annum for no benefit. If we look at the figures, they should be allowed to get back the stamps they have lost, or should have had for those years, at no cost because they have already paid approximately €600 per annum towards class K from their miserly salaries of €16,500. If the Minister is to be fair about it, there should be a retrospective measure with regard to the date councillors began to pay this under FEMPI. Will the Minister comment on this?

It might sound a little confusing, but it is very clear. We have taken 4% from councillors, which equates to the same amount as if they were paying for a full stamp since the introduction of FEMPI. If we allow them to buy it back retrospectively surely the Minister will have to accept they have already bought it and give them credit in stamps back to the first day of FEMPI. This is a very important issue. Many councillors throughout the country are in their mid-50s. They have committed to full-time public service. If they do not get these stamps back, they will not qualify for a full State pension when they reach 66 years of age. I have been contacted by several people as, I am sure, have other Senators. They cannot make back the stamps any way other than this. The Minister cannot charge them for something for which they have already paid. Will the Minister comment on this? It is very important.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope that the Minister will do something to address this matter. I understand, and the Minister will perhaps nod if I am correct, that Members are subject to the same provisions, in that we are charged 4%. Previously, the Minister called that grossly unfair. Perhaps he did not say "grossly", but he did say that it was unfair and wrong in principle. He then made the argument that there was a cosmetic aspect to this and that it would not go down well with the public if public servants were seen to get justice. This is just justice. One does not get charged PRSI only to be unable to claim any of the benefits. That would be a nonsense.

The Minister should have courage and remove the 4% charge, particularly in light of Mr. Horgan's report on the Garda. In that, Mr. Horgan outlined the average income of gardaí. I do not begrudge them it, but it is approximately what we get in the Seanad. Many people get a great deal more than Members of this House, yet they are not subject to this silly tax situation.

I urge the Minister to examine the matter. He has acknowledged that it is unfair and unjust in principle. Politicians should be prepared to stand up for themselves. We in these two Houses are making decisions, which are sometimes very important, on behalf of the entire country. There are many middle management people who get a great deal more than we do, yet they are only making decisions for their individual companies. We are making decisions for the State. It is crucial work.

People dismiss politicians as an elite. I do not see anything wrong with elites. It means the chosen, the best. Of course we want the best representing people. There are 4.5 million or 5 million people in this country. They elect a couple of hundred to represent them. Surely to God, that means that Members are worth something, for example, the same treatment as the ordinary citizen. Ordinary citizens do not get charged tax for which they receive no benefit.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this my only opportunity to speak during the debate?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the other amendments are out of order at this stage, the Senator may only speak on this amendment.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we not speak on the section?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, only on the amendment.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yet we can interrupt when it is ruled out of order.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris can keep interrupting and we can be here all night if he likes, but-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be splendid.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----he can only speak on the amendments.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am supportive of amendment No. 1, but I will also speak to those that have been ruled out of order because I believe-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins cannot speak to those amendments, only to this one.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then I will speak to the wider question of the Bill. At what point will I get to do that on Report Stage?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We really only speak on amendments on Report Stage.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When one is passing the Bill at the end of Report Stage, it is usually allowable for people to comment.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A comment more than a critical analysis.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will comment.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of the Bill.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow the Senator to speak then.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will reserve my right to comment at that stage. I just want to ensure that I get the opportunity.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I will put the question. Actually, I must invite the Minister to speak. I was doing away with him.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to disappoint Senators, but I will not be able to accept this amendment. It proposes that the class K-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister would be able to. He is just not going to.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going to. If abolished, the class K contribution of 4% made by a range of public officeholders, including the President, Members of both Houses and members of the Judiciary, would result in increases in net pay of up to €8,000 for some politicians and judges.

The class K contributions were introduced at a time when the State was experiencing an unprecedented financial crisis. Payment of class K contributions was one of the measures that ensured that public officeholders contributed to the resolution of that crisis. In particular, the introduction of these contributions meant that officeholders in general paid the same marginal rate of all statutory deductions from their salaries as most employees.

It is not clear if the Senators submitting this amendment envisage any other change in the PRSI liabilities and associated cover for the relevant officeholders. The amendment does not provide for this. It only provides for the abolition of the levy. Even were that not the case, I am unsure as to whether it would be appropriate for the State to extend additional cover.The key benefit available under the social insurance system is the State contributory pension. As I have said, most officeholders have very generous occupational pension arrangements already. Any extension of cover for the State contributory pension to officeholders would have to be done in conjunction with the examination of the current occupational pension arrangements. Again, it is simply not sustainable or desirable that public officeholders would gain a State contributory pension on top of their existing occupational pension.

As I indicated previously, I will be speaking to my colleagues, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, on this issue. It is complex and does not relate solely to PRSI. It would have to be examined having regard to occupational pension entitlements generally and the potential alternative that Senator Craughwell suggested, namely, replacing the measure with a tax. I understand the value of public service pensions, including the faster accrual schemes, is something the Public Service Pay Commission has been asked to take into account in its work. Accordingly, it is not opportune to start recalibrating and enhancing the benefits for officeholders at this stage.

I can understand the valid point the Senators are making, which is that officeholders must pay class K PRSI at a rate of 4% but receive no benefits from it. Senators are asking whether it should be a matter of not receiving the benefits or replacing the system altogether with a tax. That is not something I can deal with in isolation. It must have regard to the whole issue of public sector pay, pensions for public servants and tax. I really need to have a conversation about this with the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to determine-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not looking for a tax. Senator Craughwell may be but I am certainly not.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The House may also wish to note that during the crisis, class K contributions also were introduced for employed persons and certain occupational pensioners under the age of 66. These contributors also became liable for an additional class K liability without gaining additional entitlements based on the payment of that additional charge. While these contributions were already covered for all or certain benefits, any removal of class K liability for officeholders may have impacted on them also.

With regard to councillors, the Bill provides for councillors to be moved to class S, which is the self-employed class. This affects councillors aged 66 and older. They will not have to pay PRSI at all if aged 66 or older, bringing them into line with employees and self-employed people. It also means that from January onwards, their contributions will count towards their PRSI record for the State contributory pension and other benefits.

I want to clarify the position for officeholders and other contributors who wish to make voluntary contributions upon the extension of the deadline for application, which I announced last week on foot of the amendment tabled by Senator Higgins. The deadline for the application will be extended to five years from the beginning of January 2017. Anyone who last paid contributions as an employee or self-employed worker in 2012 may apply to become a voluntary contributor in respect of all the intervening years, provided they satisfy the necessary qualifying criteria. It is not that the local authority members will get their class K contributions turned into class S contributions. I do not believe we could do that for them and not for others also. It means, however, that, that as with everyone else, they would, if they had been paying PRSI in some form up to 2012, be able to make voluntary contributions in respect of that, provided they satisfy the necessary criteria. I understand the argument in favour of a refund but this measure was brought in as a recession measure, just like the FEMPI pay cuts and welfare cuts imposed on many people. There would be something rather anomalous if we paid a refund to a group of politicians and did not do the same for everyone else who took a pay cut in different ways during the period in question.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister confirm that the crisis is over?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can. I cannot confirm that the financial emergency is over, though.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his somewhat expected answer. He is correct that class K was introduced in 2011 as our way of showing – God help us and save us – that we are suffering like the ordinary working man and paying 4% of our salary and getting nothing for it. We were smart enough, however, to allow for voluntary contributions so we could still get the contributory old age pension. The truth of the matter is that it was a nonsense. It was a fudge for the public to pretend that we, in some way, were suffering in the same way as them. This is not the Minister's doing. He just happens to be in the chair at the moment, and I have every sympathy for him as he tries to push this Bill through the House. The bottom line is that when we talk about the Public Service Pay Commission and various other matters, we should have the commission consider this House as much as the poor old public servant who is operating at the bottom of the scale in some clerical grade. Let us take everything into account when talking about this. If we really want to be on par with our colleagues in the public service, let us apply the same principles to ourselves.

I wonder whether the next Taoiseach will be on a career-averaged pension rather than on a Taoiseach's pension. These are the sorts of steps we need to take if we really want to be consistent right across the public service. This is a tax. It was nothing else but a tax. Is was designed to be a tax purely to serve as a fudge for the people to indicate that we in some way were suffering the way they were. It is not the Minister's doing. He has the opportunity to fix it and I believe he will. It is just not opportune at this time. As my colleague, Senator Norris, said, let us not be afraid of the public. I do a good day's work in here. I work in here from every Monday to every Friday. I do not believe I have to apologise for my existence. I took a goddamned pay cut of €8,000 a year to sit in here. Therefore, I make no apology for anything.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of the day, we have to stop being afraid of what the people will think.

We saw recently that members of An Garda Síochána got a miserable settlement to bring them somewhat close to where they should be. What did they do then? Two days later, they came out and said a garda is worth €100,000 per year. This has to stop. We should stop pandering to the popular media and start dealing with things in a real, rational way. I appreciate what the Minister is trying to do with the Social Welfare Bill and I am 100% behind him on that. It is an awful pity he cannot extend it to wipe out this nonsense completely.

As Senator Landy said regarding the councillors, it is outrageous that we are not going to convert contributions into a contributory old age pension for all those who have paid the 4% and are over 66 years of age. If that is not done for them, they should be given back the money. The State has stolen the money from them by taking 4% of their salary on the pretence that it was for social insurance. They are not to be given social cover when over 66 and they are not going to be given their money back. That is thievery of the worst sort. Let us play the game straight. I really believe the Minister should re-examine the issue of entitlement to a contributory old age pension for men and women who served this country for many years in their local authorities. I do not make any apology to the public for saying that. I thank the Minister for his time and courtesy.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, could the Minister clarify a point? He mentioned backdating for five years to 2012. I recollect that the FEMPI legislation was commenced in 2010. Why is there a two-year difference? We are talking about a small number of people. For the Minister's information, there are approximately 330 full-time councillors in the country. Of those, only one third, or 120, are directly affected.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They all have votes in Seanad elections.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course they have, and they can also vote in party leadership elections. Why will the Minister not backdate to the very start, or to when the FEMPI legislation was implemented, thus allowing councillors to get their PRSI stamps from that time? Why is he using a five-year period dating back to 2012?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. I must put the question.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I get an answer to the question first? In fairness to the Minister, I believe he is willing to answer.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a couple of factors. I believe the FEMPI legislation in question was from 2011 but I will double-check it. The basic principle that I have applied to any change to social insurance treatment for councillors was that they should get fair treatment, not special treatment. That is why they will continue to pay PRSI but on the same basis that it is paid by an employee or self-employed person. I am loath to do anything that would not be done for any other group, such as converting one stamp to another stamp, introducing retrospectivity or allowing retrospective contributions.We will have another Bill in the late spring or early summer with a number of reforming measures and there is a chance between now and then to look at this and to see if we can do something that way.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are deemed not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and are ruled out of order.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow some brief comment at this stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a quick couple of points. For clarification, the particular measure on voluntary contributions which I acknowledge was accepted by the Minister, related to all people and they will have a period of five years in which they can make voluntary contributions following their last previous contribution. I was thinking especially of women returning to the workplace in that context, but it may be of use to many. With regard to the question of refunds and moving on, there are sectors that are getting a refund. The building and banking industries are able to write off current profits against previous losses.

I will now focus on the Bill and will be brief. I again express my regret on the measure around child benefit. I am concerned about it and I look forward to seeing the regulations but I feel that element of the Bill is wrong-headed. I acknowledge that the Minister has accepted my amendment on voluntary contributions and thank the Minister for that. It was important and will make a very practical difference in many people's lives in Ireland, particularly those of women, and is some small gesture towards starting to address our gender pension gap. It was unfortunate that we were not able to move forward on the homemaker's credit in this budget and I expect that we will. The homemaker's credit system that we currently have - the homemaker's disregard system - means there are people, predominantly women, in Ireland who have made 520 contributions, that is, have made the full number of required contributions and who are still not receiving a full contributory pension due to a trick of technicality. There is a huge issue of unfairness. The fact that it is expensive is no justification for not addressing it and it is a damaging issue of trust. This leads me to my more substantive concern. It is very unfortunate that Members did not have the opportunity today to discuss and move forward in taking action on the shocking situation with the Independent News and Media pension fund. My proposals would have been a way of doing that and I regret they were found to be out of order. I am surprised that amendment No. 3 was deemed not relevant to the subject of the Bill since its subject was the subject of the Bill. I want to highlight some key concerns. In that amendment, I simply proposed a well-tested model from the UK which would ensure that solvent companies-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That amendment was ruled out of order.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have allowed particular leniency.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, I am entitled to speak to the Bill and this is my slot to speak.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is allowed only brief comment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to make a number of points that relate to the Bill because they relate also to what the Bill is not doing that it had the opportunity to do. I will not speak at length on this issue but I will point out that the proposals were within the OECD guidelines and were part of that wider package of pension reform that was debated in great depth on Committee Stage in this House. The proposals were part of that wider picture and as I have indicated, we have also debated this on the Finance Bill. There has been a shocking betrayal of trust in the payments and in what has been done with the Independent News and Media pensions, and especially around the 2013 agreement. I am not the first person to raise this issue. It is relevant because this has been raised with regard to the Social Welfare Bill in 2014 and in 2015 by Deputies Róisín Shortall and Willie O'Dea. Again and again the opportunity has been put forward to take action on this measure and the opportunity has not been seized in between. That is unfortunate. In 2013 many of those who worked in Independent News and Media took a 40% loss in their pension fund. We must bear in mind that it is not just journalists who lost; it was also administrators, some of whom went from a pension of €23,000 down to a pension of €14,000. Decisions made at the recent emergency general meeting by Independent News and Media will mean that pensions for similar administrators - many of whom are women - will pay only €8,600 and €16,000 in some cases. There are also many couples working at the company who will suffer double losses. There is a very real impact and this was an opportunity to take action. It is of real concern because the response is what previous Ministers for social welfare have always replied; they have always said that they would address this through the Pensions Authority or the trustees and it is their role. We have seen a massive disrespect for the Pensions Authority and for the trustees. The chairman of the trustees of Independent News and Media has said there was no legal or moral justification for the fund being cut. We know the company is solvent and that it has €86 million in cash reserves.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to conclude.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My simple request is that as unfortunately, we have no opportunity today to put this forward as part of the Bill, the Minister should indicate how he will-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He cannot.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----meaningfully move this issue forward.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister cannot on this Stage.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been indicated-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Senators and to clarify that on Report Stage they can only speak to the amendments that are allowable. I ask the Senator to please conclude and take her seat. I invite Senator Humphreys to make some brief concluding remarks. That is what this section is for if Senator Higgins does not mind. I do not make the rules Senator.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. We have a pattern-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has had some decent leniency.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I understand there is usually provision at the end of the Bill, when it is passed-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not at the end of the Bill yet.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies, I was told this was the end of the Bill.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are asking for guidance.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the end of the Bill.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only on relevant matters at the end of the Bill.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a relevant matter.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or we could talk about the whole Bill. That was my experience of 30 years in this House.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Social Welfare Bill.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the Social Welfare Bill. This is me speaking to the Social Welfare Bill. I am also not just speaking to this Social Welfare Bill but also to the Social Welfare Bill from last year and the one from the year before, in each instance where this issue has been flagged. If this is not the home for that amendment or not the home for that action, I urge the Minister to find a home and find a way to take action on this issue. We know there has been absolute concern around this. It is an issue which merits action and I know the Minister has indicated this also. I ask that he will move forward-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made her point. I thank the Senator.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be a board meeting, and there are meetings happening now and I also urge there would be meaningful engagement with the trustees and the Pensions Authority, not simply a fait accompli.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness Senator, this is not relevant.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a plea to the Independent News and Media board. I will conclude. I am moving away from that issue. This is my point, and it is the point we made extensively on Committee Stage - and I will come back to those point - which is pensions should not be a crisis, this is the most predictable issue. We know that people grow older. It is even more predictable than people being born and needing shelter. It should not be a crisis because it is something that should have long-term thought shared responsibility, planning and trust-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's point is well made.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----in relation to it. I ask the Minister to introduce those measures on the public contributory pension and I ask him to champion the kind of long-term thinking, shared responsibility, planning and trust with regard to the other areas. That would be fundamental to the introduction of any universal supplementary scheme in the future. We need to rebuild trust in this area. I urge the Minister to give some indication on this.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not intend to go over all the points made by Senator Higgins but I will reiterate one comment made by her with regard to fairness. We have a real significant problem with fairness in pensions. Senator Higgins said that pensions should not be a crisis but the fact is that pensions are quickly becoming a crisis. This is not just for defined benefit schemes, it also relates to how the State is going to find future pension liabilities. As we are coming out of the financial crisis, for the last five years survival was the important element. Now we must start planning for the next five, ten and 15 years. The Joint Committee on Social Protection is already starting to look at the challenges posed for the State by pensions. I ask the Minister to reflect on defined benefit schemes. It will not just affect the Independent News and Media fund. We will have another crisis and then another so we may as well face up to it and deal with it now in respect of the Independent News and Media pensioners to make sure they get some fairness.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They can be dealt with in other legislation.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The challenge for the State is in how it provides for future years for people who will be going onto pensions.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. His point is well made.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to address the Bill generally and I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for coming to the House to address the House.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask that the Senator would reserve general points on the Bill until the concluding remarks if that is okay.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect, other colleagues were allowed an opportunity to talk so-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator will have an opportunity but-----

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to be afforded the same opportunity afforded my colleagues.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, is this not the conclusion of the Bill? Did the Acting Chairman not say that we are concluding the Bill?

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not. This is Report Stage so general remarks should be made at the end, on Fifth Stage.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not speak at the end if that makes it any easier. I thank the Minister for coming to the House to address it about many points, including those on Committee Stage. I echo the sentiments expressed by Senator Higgins about pension reform. I hope that after Christmas, the Minister will really drive the bus concerning pension reform. He has made flippant comments such as there will be winners and losers. I do not think these comments are helpful. The Minister must look at the current situation. There are losers and we have seen that women have been the losers when we look at the gender pension gap. I would like the Minister to take a proper look at that because it is something I will definitely push. I do not think it is good enough to just say that there will be winners and losers.

I also wish to raise the Independent News and Media pension scheme. Last week, the Minister sought legal advice from the Attorney General regarding intervening in the High Court dispute, yet this week when he had an opportunity to implement legislation, he failed to do so. Why has he not taken Senator Higgins's amendment on board? I also ask him to support a Bill that will be tabled by Deputy Willie O'Dea in the new year that will put into effect the amendment moved by Senator Higgins. Will the Minister give a commitment to this House that he will support that Bill because this matter needs to be dealt with urgently? Many defined benefit pension schemes may be closed in the coming weeks knowing that this is still allowable. We urgently need to look at this situation.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to point out that I tried to raise this question and other allied questions about pensions in the debate on the Finance Bill and was told that it was a matter for the Department of Social Protection. I was told that the Minister for Social Protection would be in the House and could deal with it so that is rather extraordinary. The Minister discussed this issue on "Prime Time", discussed it with leaders inside Independent News and Media and consulted the Attorney General so he obviously feels that it is a matter within his remit.

It is quite extraordinary that this situation is being allowed to continue. Independent News and Media has been engaged in asset stripping. It is a profitable company that has been asset stripping the pension reserves in order to pay dividends and give enormous amounts of money to a small number of individuals. This matter should have been addressed after the Aer Lingus and Clerys debacles. It was flagged at that point and it was clear that there was going to be another situation where pensioners would be disgracefully treated in this republic where everybody is supposed to be equal. Why has it not been addressed? Will the Minister give any commitment that this glaring issue will be addressed?

The fact that a profitable company can asset strip the resources of the company away from pensioners shows the venomous side of capitalism. Regardless of whether it is relevant to this Bill, and it seems to me that it is perfectly relevant, Senator Higgins's third amendment, which changes the Title of the Bill, would have the effect of making it directly and immediately relevant. This is a process in these Houses. We can change legislation and are entitled to change the Title of a Bill. If that change had been allowed, there could be no argument that this was not directly relevant and germane. For that reason, the discussion of these amendments is a bad day's work.

Why are we being passed from Billy to Jack? We are being told that it is not a matter for the Finance Bill and that it is a matter for the Social Welfare Bill. We are then told that it is not a matter for the Social Welfare Bill. What is it a matter for? Where do we address these issues? As a House of Parliament, we should be entitled to address these issues which are of burning importance to citizens of this State who are unfortunate enough to be employed by Independent News and Media.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My general points on the Bill are that I am disappointed in several respects but the Minister knows that. I am disappointed about lone parents, child maintenance, the living alone allowance and the fuel allowance as well as the scandal surrounding the transitional State pension because it costs so little to fix it yet the Minister again ducked it.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any Member can initiate their own Bill-----

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have 65-year-olds being forced to sign on for jobseeker's allowance. It is disgraceful and shameful. It is wrong to do that to people at the end of their working lives.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear hear.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not good enough.

I want to address the issue of pensions reform. I was a trade union official before I came into this House. The issue of defined benefit pension schemes was one that came up all the time. I do not understand why the previous Government, which had five years to deal with this, failed to do anything about it. It was not as if it was not coming up. I do not think I have ever agreed with Deputy Willie O'Dea about anything but I agree with him on this and I agree with the Bill Fianna Fáil tried to bring in two years ago. I commend Senator Higgins for the work she has done and the coalition that seems to embody almost all of us here. This is why I cannot help thinking that we have missed an opportunity here. So often the Seanad comes in for criticism but it is not our fault today. Everyone has tried to act with good faith to address an urgent situation not just for the staff and former staff of Independent News and Media but for all those affected by defined benefit schemes, yet it is ruled out of order. Perhaps I am showing my inexperience here but I do not understand why this is the case.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neither do I.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the father of the House says he does not understand why, there is clearly a problem here. The bottom line is that the people who really need our help have been failed.

I want to end on a positive note - at least I hope I can. If we are all in agreement in respect of this issue, surely it is incumbent on the Minister to act immediately. There is nothing stopping him-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's point is well made.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but he will be judged and remembered on this. For once, quite a few people might be watching the Seanad this evening. I am hugely disappointed that we could not adopt Senator Higgins's amendments because the work was done correctly and it could have made a real difference. It is not often that we manage to have an opportunity where we can do that.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, it would not have made it into Independent News and Media newspapers.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I hope this situation has not arisen out of fear. I hope all of us are better than that. I do not understand why this has been ruled out of order. If we all agree on the matter, and the Minister expressed a lot of sympathy about this, I cannot see why he cannot take action at the earliest possible stage to deal with it. I hope it is not too late for our colleagues in Independent News and Media.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's point is very well made.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take up too much time.

When is a property right a property right? Is it a property right when you are a retiring politician who is entitled to walk away with your pension untouched regardless of what disaster comes our way? Is that a property right? Is it a property right when a person joins an organisation like Independent News and Media newspapers as a copyist at 16 years of age and works right through to the age of 65 expecting that he or she will be able to retire with some level of comfort but someone comes along and takes half of it away and leaves the person in poverty having worked all his or her life? It is billionaires who do this. The owners of profit-making organisations leave such people in poverty. It is relevant to the Department of Social Protection because it will have to pick up much of the tab as these people end up going to community welfare officers to be able to fill their tank with a bit of oil for the winter.

It is disgusting that these companies can do these things. It is disgusting that they can declare a pension scheme insolvent today based on today's share values. What about holding back and seeing whether those shares will improve over time?What about saying that perhaps the scheme does not need to be wound up today or turned into a defined contribution scheme? We are constantly told we need to consider the long-term. It is amazing how a pension scheme can look to the short-term and change from being a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme purely because it suits the scheme. I make no bones about the fact that I have some experience of this because one of my pensions has change to a defined contribution scheme. I have some idea of what is involved.

As the Minister with responsibility for this area, I ask him to consider the overall private pension system in this country. There are too many small pension schemes with too many unqualified trustees listening to highly qualified financial companies telling them what they can and cannot do. There is a major problem with pensions and I ask the Minister to get a grip on the problem because it needs to be grappled with now before people in every pension scheme in the country are people are on the breadline.

I extend my sympathies to those that have been hit in Aer Lingus and Independent News and Media. It is an outrage. We sold Aer Lingus and gave the money to Europe, but left the pensioners with nothing.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the time he has put into the House, and his interaction and commitment to interact in the future. It would not be a surprise if I told the Minister that one of my main interests in the Bill was ensuring that councillors were treated properly. I discussed the matter with the Minister before the Bill came before the House. He has made an effort in that regard and I will give credit where it is due.

The difficulty I have is that the Minister has said he would be fair to everybody, not just for a particular group, and does not want to put one group ahead of everybody else. The problem regarding councillors is that they are not the same as everybody else. There is an anomaly in the system which needs to be addressed by a specific resolution to the problem, no more than the pension scheme we have discussed.

I would reflect everything that has been said. Time will resolve the matter because the will of the majority of Members sitting in the House is to resolve this matter. In the new year legislation will come before the House. I have been in the House for five years, and I always understood that once we received the yellow papers that the amendments thereon were those that were agreed and passed, yet the on picking up the yellow pages today we discovered that amendments were ruled out of order.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments that are ruled out of order always appear on the list.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is probably a reason for this and I am sure there is an answer. If we are to be fair and honest, we need to be told in advance what will be debated in the House in order that we can deal with those issues.

The Minister has publicly stated his intention to bring forward a social welfare Bill in the spring. He should outline to the House today whether he intends to deal with the overall pensions issue and the minor issue, albeit very significant for those involved, of the anomalous situation faced by councillors following the passage of the Bill today. He can address such issues in a social welfare Bill in the spring and I hope he will do so.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak a little about pensions in general, as Senators have referred to the issue, and then refer to the Bill. Senators of course know that there are many different types of pensions and issues relating to them. The State contributory pension is not means tested and is funded from PRSI. There is a State non-contributory pension which is means tested and is tax funded. There are public sector pensions, defined benefit private trust pensions, defined contribution private trust pensions and all sorts of different personal arrangements ranging from RACs to PRSAs. The issues facing all of those different types of pensions are distinct and different, and there are challenges relating to their affordability and sustainability in all cases, which require different solutions.

A significant number of reforms have been undertaken, in fairness to the previous Government of which I was a member. Provision was made, on foot of the Waterford Crystal situation, for what would be done in the case of a double insolvency - Senator Humphreys will be very familiar with that work. Provision was also made for the distribution of assets more fairly where a pension scheme is wound up. That is part of what happened with the Aer Lingus and ISS pensions. I appreciate that some people do not believe it was fair, but a law had to be passed on how the money in the pot, which was not enough, would be distributed among potential beneficiaries.

Moves were made to do things, for example, to make pensions more affordable and sustainable in the future by increasing the retirement age, which was a necessary reform. Sinn Féin tried to reverse that necessary reform last week in the Dáil. The risk when changes are made to pension rules is that one might make a bad situation worse.

In the 1970s the retirement age was 70 years of age, and people used to live to the age of 72, 73 or 74.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going anywhere.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be no mystery as to why we have an emerging or extent pensions crisis in Ireland, because pensions were always calculated on the basis that people would pay into the system for 30, 40 or 50 years and only need pensions for a few years. We are now in a very different space. The last thing we need to do is make reforms or reverse some of the reforms that made things better for people who are just about pension age but will damage people who are aged 30, 40 and 50.

The risk is that changes can be made to the law that works for people who are about to retire in the next couple of years, but which will pull the ladder up and empty the pot for people aged in their 20s, 30s and 40s. That is why all of these things need to be considered in their totality.

Pensions will be a major issue in 2017. I intend to make them so, and stated many months ago that once the budget and this Bill were completed my focus for the next six months of new year, before the next budget negotiations start, will be the working family payment, pension reform and further measures around employment and welfare to work.

We need to bear in mind that any changes that incur a cost mean the cost has to be borne by someone, and we need to be honest about that. It is not honest to come into the Dáil or Seanad as a Deputy or Senator and demand that such and such be done without saying how that will be paid for. It may not be helpful to talk about winners or losers, but perhaps it is true. Perhaps sometimes when one changes rules there are winners and losers. We need to be honest about that and assess who the winners and losers would be and what the impact would be. Maybe some people should be losers, but we cannot always come into the House and demand higher costs and spending without saying how they will be funded or always demand changes and only discuss those that benefit from them without referring to those who may lose out.

Senator Ardagh asked about the amendment tabled by 15 Senators. It was ruled out of order by the Cathaoirleach, according to the Order of the House. I did not rule it out of order. If there is an issue, it is one Senators need to discuss amongst themselves and not involve me directly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's Department had something to do with it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was asked whether I would support to commit to supporting a Fianna Fáil Bill that has not been published. I will consider that, once I have seen the Bill, if it is even drafted.

If the amendment tabled was in order, the most striking thing to me is the first line, which states that a solvent firm shall not be allowed to close a defined benefit pension scheme except in certain circumstances. Under Irish law, pensions are a trust and firms do not close down pension schemes. They may act in such a way that causes them to be closed, but is the trustees who close a scheme. Even if the amendment was in order it would have fallen and probably have been ineffectual.

Whatever we do in the space, it is important that we understand the effects and do not do something that does no good. It is a good thing to be well-meaning, but there is not much point in being well-meaning if what one is trying to do is ineffectual. One definitely does not want make things worse. We always debate two laws when we are in a Legislature, that is, the law in front of us and the law of unintended consequences. We all know how those things can pan out.

In Ireland, occupational schemes are generally set up under a trust and are maintained by an employer on a voluntary basis. The trustees and rules of the scheme differ from one to another and, as with any contractual situation, reflect the level of obligation of the parts involved. While the Pensions Act provides for a frame for the regulation and supervision of occupational pension schemes, it does not impose any requirement on the employer to fund the scheme benefits or maintain an existing scheme, and never has.Those matters have been considered during comprehensive reviews of the pension system in Ireland. The introduction of a debt on the employer would raise a range of issues and possible consequences for defined benefit schemes, some of which may not be beneficial for the members. It is not clear whether a change in the law could be applied to existing schemes as well as new ones. It is also not clear whether any change in the law could apply to existing deficits that have been accrued over time, as opposed to future ones, so there is a risk that any change could be ineffectual.

There are strong arguments both for and against the introduction of an employer obligation. While such an obligation may seem to provide stability and certainty for scheme members, it may result in less desirable outcomes such as prompting well-funded schemes to wind up to avoid the new obligations being imposed on them, thus making the law counterproductive, threatening the company's financial stability and in some circumstances rendering employers insolvent. When one has solvent companies with insolvent pension schemes attached to them there is a risk if one gets it wrong that one could make the company insolvent and the consequence of that is the employees lose their jobs and probably end up on statutory redundancy or have their pay and terms and conditions diminished as a result. It would also impact in that case on the creditors - people who are owed money by the company, perhaps a small business or a professional who did some work and is waiting for the bill to be paid - and of course it could have an impact on shareholders and shareholder value. Shareholders are not always billionaires. Sometimes the shareholders could be somebody's else pension fund. It could be the credit union or an individual's savings. The measure could also impact in other ways.

It is also not clear how provisions such as this would impact on multi-employer pension funds of which there are many. There are lots of pension funds that have a few employers. One could ask what would happen if some of the employers are insolvent and others are not? Have the 15 people who tabled the amendment considered those matters and what are their answers to those questions? I am interested to know. If anybody wants to write to me with answers to those questions I would be happy to read them.

Finally, I note that the statement issued by Independent News & Media yesterday states that it is not and never has been the intention of Independent News & Media to renege on the agreement with the pension trustees made in 2013. That is an important statement and it is one to which the company should be held accountable. If such an agreement was made with the trustees in 2013, it should be honoured if at all possible. In my discussions with the Attorney General, while it is not the basis that I might have liked, there is a basis on which the Government could take an interest in this matter but I hope it will not come to that point and the matter can be resolved as other pension funds have been resolved in discussions between the company and the trustees and also their trade union representatives.

In terms of the Bill as a whole I thank the Senators for allowing the speedy passage of the Social Welfare Bill. It involves a €300 million package of welfare changes benefitting approximately 1.5 million people with some special changes of benefit to rural communities, people who are self-employed in terms of extending social insurance to them, allowing lone parents who work to keep more of the money they earn and also some important changes in terms of people going back to education and getting into enterprise. I hope it is the first of a number of social welfare Bills that I will have the privilege to bring through this House and I thank Senators for allowing it to pass before the recess so that we can begin to implement the measures in January. The first will be the disregard for lone parents, allowing people to access the back to work enterprise allowance after nine months in receipt of social welfare, as opposed to 12 months, and the changes around young jobseekers who are homeless, in particular, which I will now be able to sign into law to come into effect in the first week in January, which I am happy to be able to do.

I also thank the officials from my Department for the work they have done on the Bill for weeks now, ever since budget day, and even before that, and also the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas for all the work they have to do in organising these sessions, including processing the Committee Stage amendments and other work.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Ray Butler (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.