Vol. 431 No. 3
15 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he intends to apply the full effect of the devaluation of the punt to the maximum level of pension payable under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22 Mrs. Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he intends to apply the full effect of the devaluation of the punt to the maximum level of pension payable under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
42 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if it is proposed to index the pension to be provided under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
48 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he intends to apply the full effect of the devaluation of the punt to the maximum level of pension payable under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
75 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if it is proposed to index the pension to be provided under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
82 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if it is proposed to index the pension to be provided under the forthcoming early retirement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 22, 42, 48, 75 and 82 together.
Under the proposals for a retirement scheme which have been sent to the Commission, I have suggested a maximum pension level of £8,771 which is the current maximum figure which will be co-financed by the Community. The relevant Council regulation does not make provision for indexation and consequently it was not possible for me to make any such provision in my detailed proposals. As regards devaluation, the maximum amount is fixed in Irish pounds and is not therefore affected by devaluation.
Is the Minister aware that devaluation properly applied would make the retirement scheme more attractive? The income should in some way be related to sterling and to devaluation. Will the Minister agree that if devaluation is properly applied it would mean an additional £900 and the pension would become more attractive?
I indicated that the pension is fixed in Irish pounds and that we have agreed to the maximum pension. I understand what the Deputy is trying to achieve. The Deputy's case is that if the pension was fixed in ECUs perhaps the result when applied to the Irish currency would be equivalent to indexation which would maximise the value of the pension. I am extremely anxious to maximise the possible benefit under this scheme. This is a very attractive scheme. There are marginal elements of the scheme which I would like to see modified but by and large the submission which has gone to Brussels represents the best that we can negotiate under the terms and regulations laid down by the Community. The fact that we are negotiating the maximum pension allowable under the scheme is an indication of our desire to transfer the benefits of that EC scheme to Irish farmers.
Is it not the case that the maximum pension of £8,771 was fixed in advance of devaluation of the Irish pound earlier this year, that it would have been entered into the Community budget plan on the basis of the then ECU exchange rate and that it would not matter if the Community continued to pay at that rate of ECUs which would now be worth £9,468 here? Would the Minister bestir himself and make sure that can be done? Would the Minister not agree that there is no obstacle to the Irish Government if it wishes to index this and that the only result would be that the European Community would pay a slightly smaller proportion of the pension? Would the Minister not agree that it would be a worthwhile move to index the scheme off our own bat?
One could make the same point in relation to every conceivable scheme discussed in this House. I am sure Deputy Dukes could make the same case in relation to social welfare.
The Government is supposed to be indexing social welfare, according to its programme.
The question would be, "Why does not the national Government increase its percentage of contribution?" Deputy Dukes knows better than most why the national Government cannot do that — because of the constraints and demands in every other area of economic activity.
Is the Minister saying no?
I take the point the Deputy made in terms of applying the ECU principle to deciding on the value of the pension. That is something I am prepared to pursue with the Commission to see if we can maximise the potential for our pensioners.
I am sure the Minister is aware that schemes have been promoted by various Departments, for instance the carer's allowance which was heralded by the Minister for Social Welfare as if it applied to everyone. In the case of this retirement scheme, there will be snags and problems. Surely this concession of attaching it to the ECU should be foremost in the Minister's mind. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that this will be pursued in Brussels by the Minister?
I admire the Deputy for his perseverance. The Deputy can be assured that this is an aspect of the scheme which I will pursue in Brussels from the point of view of maximising this potential. There are other areas of the scheme about which I am not entirely happy but which the Deputies have not identified. We hope to get an early decision on our scheme and we are also in negotiation to streamline the scheme and maximise the benefits for farmers, not only in relation to the devaluation of our currency but in relation to some other aspects of it.
