The Minister is probably aware that yesterday there was a briefing in the House by the ESB group of unions. They represent 13,000 workers whose pension scheme is being unilaterally changed, from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme, along with serious funding problems whose cost is being transferred solely on to the shoulders of those workers. These people are about to join the tens of thousands of others - in the PTSB, the Irish aviation superannuation schemes, the Abbey Theatre, Waterford Glass, SR Technics, and so on, who face the prospect of being pauperised after a lifetime contributing to a pension scheme. Is it not clear that Irish society is now paying the price of an over-reliance on private pension schemes and the global capital market and that it is failing to provide for people in their latter years? There is a pensions timebomb in this country which has been ticking for some time, is getting louder and will explode. Is the Government going to stand idly by or is it going to do something about it?

The Government does not even have to struggle very hard in this regard because last week Social Justice Ireland came up with a proposal that would give it an answer to the situation and an opportunity to turn the existing policy on its head. This would start with the belief or fundamental principle that a retired citizen is entitled to the nation's gratitude and recognition of their consideration. A citizen is entitled, as of right, to a guaranteed income and standard of living upon retirement. The Minister has an opportunity to deliver this through the policy proposed by Social Justice Ireland, based on a universal pension scheme. SJI's proposal is to replace the present five or six schemes of contributory, non-contributory, widow's, etc., with a single scheme whereby a person who has reached the eligible age is entitled to a pension based on his or her residency. This would give security to all, allow people to plan for the future and get rid of the gaps that currently exist for many people, women in particular, who took time out to rear their children and in consequence have fewer contributions.

Thank you.

It would eliminate the contributory philosophy which puts value only on paid employment rather than on other kinds of contribution. The best thing is that it would not cost the Government anything but would save it money if it stood the present pension policy on its head and directed some of the massive tax concessions given to the wealthy into this scheme.

Thank you.

Will the Minister end a pension system which is based on tax reliefs that subsidise the wealthy and ensure that a philosophy which ensures that a person who is poor in his or her working life will be poor in retirement is replaced with the idea of a guaranteed, decent pension for all, on retirement?

Hear, hear.

The Deputy asked a series of questions and I will try to go through them as best I can. First, she prefaced her comments with reference to the ESB pension scheme. This scheme is sound; we should acknowledge that. Changes were introduced in the scheme last year, by agreement with the workers. The new funding standards that have been set for all pension schemes have been set by the regulator, with the objective of having security of funding for pensioners into the future. The application of that new funding regime is currently being examined. That is what is taking place within the ESB

I refer to the broader pensions issue. This is an issue on which not only Ireland but all developed countries are focused. The Deputy is right in that many private sector pension schemes have taken a massive hit because of the collapse of equity values. Many of those values are beginning to recover so there is greater robustness in respect of the values of those pension schemes. However, the criteria demanded by the pension regulators are being increased to ensure there is a solvent and sustainable fund into the future. There is no question of us standing idly by. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has been very active in examining these matters and has contributed to many debates in this Chamber. I am sure the Deputy can pursue these issues with her.

In regard to the specific proposal made by Social Justice Ireland, I and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, met that organisation last week. We have heard its comprehensive set of proposals on this and a range of other issues which, as is the case with all submissions, will be taken into account very carefully.

The Deputy spoke about tax benefits to private pension funds. As she knows, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, announced in last year's budget that we are ending tax benefits to any fund or any individual once a pension of €60,000 had accrued. That is a fundamental change and legislation to enact it will shortly be introduced.

The Minister is correct that this is an international problem but he does not yet rule the world.

He is getting there.

However, he is accountable for what goes on in this country. He has singularly failed to address the issue I posed to him, namely, the very real, costed proposal that has landed on his desk, which offers the prospect of raising living standards for retirees in this State while at the same time it saves the State money. This is an ideological question. I understand the Labour Party has lost much of its ideology but the bottom line here is that-----

We threw the Deputy out.

It lost its soul.

-----we still have a society where billions of euro in tax relief is weighted to the wealthy, with 82% of such reliefs going to the top 20% and 56% going to the top 10% of income earners in this country. If the Minister stood that policy on its head, reduced the marginal rate of relief to the standard rate of 20%, reduced the earnings contribution cap to €75,000, or twice the average wage, and reduced the standard threshold of the fund, he could still save the State more money by introducing a universal scheme.

When the Minister departs office will the Labour Party have distinguished itself in any way from its blueshirt partners? When he was on these benches - his website still carries the sloganeering----

You are over time, Deputy.

Do not get upset.

-----in which he stated that the Pensions Board-----

Bernard is getting upset too.

On his website, the Minister states that the last Government and the Pensions Board got it radically wrong, and that the Fianna Fáil Government of the time should immediately-----

Deputy, you are over your time. Please put a question.

Will the Minister continue to subsidise the wealthy or will he give decent rights to pensioners?

How about the people who do not pay their tax?

I have no views on ruling the world but I thought the Deputy opposite was a traditional Wobbly, uniting the workers of the world. From the years I spent listening to her on the administrative council of the Labour Party, I know her good Trot view of that. Unfortunately, being caught in the time warp of the 1960s is of no value to us in terms of interpreting the economic crisis we now have.

Let me give the Deputy some facts. In the most difficult of economic times we have maintained the old age pension rate. One may consider the rate of €230 and compare it to that of Northern Ireland or Britain. Look at the additional benefits we provide. By any objective analysis we have protected the elderly - rightly so - from the vagaries of the awful times we have gone through.

What about household and all the other benefits?

Wait until they take the leader's allowance away.

We cannot hear.

In terms of pension provision, we could take the line the Deputy advocates, ensure that nobody puts any private money into a pension fund and have entire dependence on the State.

Thank you.

That is entirely unaffordable in the short term. What we are doing, for the first time, is putting a cap on the pension that can accrue with State support. I hoped, and would have thought, the Deputy might welcome that but of course she is always too busy attacking the Labour Party and the left rather than looking to attack the right and its views on what is happening.

The words "Labour Party" and "left" should not be used in the same sentence.

If the House would settle down we could have the Order of Business.