Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have always argued for plain English and found it bizarre that legislation is often written in the negative. Having to look at three or four pieces of legislation going back to a principal Act can be very difficult and I have argued for consolidated Bills published with explanatory memoranda outlining deletions, etc. With computers we could do it at the drop of a hat so that we could see what is being deleted and what is replacing it. I have often used the example of the debate on the Nice treaty. The former MEP, Jens-Peter Bonde, produced a version of the Nice treaty in which it was very easy to see what was being deleted and what was being added with space for notations. If we moved towards that, it would make our job a little easier and it would also benefit those who are trying to figure out the intent of changes to legislation.

In this case very complicated estimations are being made by trustees when sending out documentation. Until recently I was not aware of the way in which annuities are used in one case and in another case actuarial values are used. I know this is something the Mercer report suggested changing. This is not the ideal time to move towards the change that would best benefit people and also give them an indication of where their pension was so that one is moving away from those who were active members where it is estimated on an actuarial basis and those who are coming into benefit where it is on an annuity basis. There is a huge discrepancy between the two - approximately 20%.

The Mercer report that the Minister circulated contains an entire page dealing with what it refers to as the transfer-value basis. It is something that needs to be addressed. It could be addressed in this legislation with a sunrise clause that it would not come into being until such the fund is in the black again. That might be a way to address it. However, we should certainly in the medium term have a single standard for estimation for trustees to outline the value of the fund, the number of active members, the number of people in receipt of the pension and everything else they need to comply with. Using two different formulae coming up with different figures can cause confusion, especially for people who are trying to work it out for themselves. They work out on what basis their annuity would be purchased or whatever, and then all of a sudden find it is 20% less because theirs was based on a different figure. It needs to be addressed.