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

I support the amendments. The 90% figure has been suggested by the OECD in cases where there are healthy employers or those with positive net revenue. This is to ensure employers are not chancing their arms, as they have done in the past, to avoid future liability or what they perceive as future liability. The view of many employers is that a defined benefit scheme is more onerous than a defined contribution scheme.

We made the argument three years ago or more in respect of some of the major schemes under threat. Legislation was produced which had a different scheme depending on who the beneficiaries were and whether a scheme was under threat or being wound down. At the time there were more than 200 defined benefit schemes. I understand there has been a substantial reduction in the number since then. We are trying to ensure in the remaining cases that at the least the right decision is being made. The idea is that a profitable company, whether it is profitable here or abroad or part of a group of companies, makes a suitable contribution and that the workers, pensioners and deferred pensioners are protected and can access what they have paid into the schemes.

The proposals in these two amendments are reasonable. We have made the arguments before. At the time, they were not accepted. However, I hope things have settled down to the point where they would be accepted as reasonable and within the spirit of what our pension system should be doing to protect those who have, in many cases, paid into a scheme. This would ensure those people would not be as much of a burden on the State pension regime. In some cases the schemes are the only source of pension for these people, but if they do not get their full entitlement, they will become a burden on the State. In some ways, this is a protection for ourselves.