asked the Minister for Social Welfare when the proposed White Paper on pensions will be published; and if it will include, as urged by the NESC, an explicit discussion of the costs and benefits of a national income-related pensions plan.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - White Paper on Pensions.
6.
It is the Government's intention to publish a framework for a national pension plan towards the end of 1985 and the framework will deal explicitly with the costs and benefits of improving pension provision. This will be in accordance with the commitment in paragraph 5.63 of the Government's Plan Building on Reality 1985-1987.
Did the Minister say something about improving pension provisions?
I said that the framework will deal explicitly with the costs and benefits of improving pension provisions.
Far from improving pensions we are sitting on a time bomb in regard to the funding of social welfare pensions and particularly the State sector which was hinted at in the national plan. It will be impossible to maintain the real values of pensions, social welfare and public service, as long as we continue to organise them without funding them in a commercial sense——
A question, please, Deputy.
It was hinted at in the Government White Paper and I am staggered that nothing is being done.
The time bomb is a political creation. For the last 15 years I have advocated that the self-employed and the farming community should be brought into the framework of social insurance. However, it will prove extraordinarily difficult to do that as long as the Opposition believe that the farmers should not even pay rates, never mind social insurance. The time bomb is that we are paying out an enormous amount of money on non-contributory pensions to the self-employed and the farmers on a non contribution basis but every time a move is made to try to rationalise the system there is massive opposition from Fianna Fáil and from the farming and self-employed interests. As a consequence there is a totally lopsided system which constitutes the time bomb and eventually people will be fed up paying for the pensions of others.
That is a red herring because the way in which index linked public service pensions are funded out of current revenue is not sustainable in the long term.
The Deputy must ask a question.
There is a 6 per cent deduction in regard to public service pensions. Ministers and Deputies contribute 6 per cent of their salaries towards their pensions although, to judge by some publicity, one would imagine that we paid nothing. Public servants pay for pensions, either in whole or in part, but we pay out tens of millions of pounds to the self employed and the farming community who pay nothing. That is manifestly unjust and inequitable. We should not spend all our time pillorying public servants.
If it is that simple why do we need a White Paper?
The idea of the White Paper is to bring in more contributors and to have an income-related supplement on top of the ordinary retirement pension. This will involve getting money from people who do not want to pay and who are encouraged by the Opposition not to pay, to bring the matter to court, to delay it in court and to change the Government.
What is the deficit in the national pensions system?
This is debate. We are not dealing with the question.
As one of the more concerned backbenchers, Deputy Brennan should convince his Front Bench of the merits of what I am saying.
What is the deficit in the national pensions system——
That question does not relate to the White Paper.
Did the Minister make a reference to farmers' rates? Has he forgotten his own party policy document which proposed the abolition of the whole rating system on farmers, domestic dwellings and commercial properties?
This can all be discussed on the Bill to be debated tomorrow.
It is easy for the Minister to make bland statements ignoring his own party policy position as stated in booklet form——
I will not have a post mortem on every chapel gate speech made over the last ten years.
It is very easy for the Chair to take the Minister off the hook.
The Chair is trying to restore some order to Question Time.
You did not draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that he was drifting from the point of the question in the reply which he gave.
The Chair has no control over the way questions are answered. We are moving on to priority questions.