Madam, - I hope that Sheila Terry's inaccurate and offensive remarks about SIPTU and our policies on pensions (Seanad Report, November 19th) do not represent the views of her party, Fine Gael. Please permit me to set the record straight.
First, we have not been "brainwashed by the industry" or the Pensions Board. Far from it. We have been active contributors to the work of the Pensions Board for many years, along with various other people with an interest in pensions. Indeed, I am one of the board members who dates back to the time of the board's predecessor, the National Pensions Board (1986 to 1993), so for most of the past two decades I have been trying to apply whatever brainpower I have to developing the national pensions system and making constructive suggestions and recommendations to the Minister of the day.
The Pensions Board is a small, hard-working and very representative body. It includes representatives of unions, employers, pensioners, consumers, pension funds, insurance companies and the various professionals involved in pensions (lawyers, actuaries and accountants). It also includes representatives of the two most relevant Government departments (Social Welfare and Finance), plus three Ministerial nominees and a chairperson.
The suggestion that it is in some way "dominated by the pensions industry", which also dominate and brainwash unions such as SIPTU, is both laughable and offensive to all those involved in the work of the board. Ironically, it was first made by Fianna Fáil when, in Opposition, it decided it didn't like the complexion of the board appointed in 1995 by the Fine Gael-led government.
Ms Terry also attacks us for advocating what she calls "child pensions"; for encouraging the Government to incentivise the use of SSIA monies for pension purposes; and for suggesting "the mandatory adoption of PRSAs". She says she would have expected "these people" (i.e. trade unionists) to be "more interested in the interests of workers and to seek the protection of their pensions". In fact, SIPTU is so interested in the protection of workers' pensions that we have a comprehensive set of proposals on this, of which the suggestions about SSIA monies and "child pensions" are only a small part. The term "child pensions" presumably refers to our suggestion that pension contributions should start much earlier in the life-cycle, preferably at birth, and that a good way of doing this would be to add 10 per cent to Child Benefit and use this to start pension accounts for every child (to which employers and others could later add their contributions).
We haven't suggested "mandatory PRSAs"; but we have said that unless radical action of the kind we suggest is taken, in 2005, there is unlikely to be any significant improvement in either the quality or quantity of pensions by the time the 2006 review takes place. The pensions policy debate is a complex one and if the Fine Gael spokesperson - or anyone else - wants to contribute constructively to it, he or she should at least read the various proposals in full and not misrepresent them. - Yours, etc.,
ROSHEEN CALLENDER, National Equality Secretary, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Dublin 1.