Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I refer to head 11. I read some documentation that confirmed that as of 31 December 2015, 60% of defined benefit schemes were in compliance with the funding standard, while the rest were subject to funding proposals. In other words, there were only nine schemes outstanding. Does the Bill provide for only nine schemes? I imagine that on 31 December 2016 all but nine were in order because they were in compliance with the legislation or had agreed to a funding arrangement. The number of non-compliant schemes is probably less than nine or close to zero.

I refer to head 12 which provides for a notice period of 12 months before there is a triggering. There are varying periods of notice and different trust instruments. The time period involved is usually three to six months. We are providing for extra months. That is welcome and I support the proposal, but whether it will make a significant difference is another matter. It has been represented to me that in some cases it could make matters worse, as members might be accruing benefits at a rate greater than the level of contributions. In other words, the longer things go on, the worst the deficit will ultimately be. If a scheme is seriously underfunded and an employee has to continue funding it, as he or she would usually have to do if an employer continued to fund it, the benefits will be reduced, which would be a waste of money for the employee. Surely it would be better, in such a situation, to have the option of putting an employee's money into a defined benefit scheme? In many cases, one finds that when there is a difficulty, an employer has been contributing at a level below that required by the trustees. As I read it, 12 seems to preserve that position during the 12 month period involved. While the provision contained in it requires consultation with members, it does not ensure their views will be implemented. Typically, pensions legislation involves consultation, but, at the end of the day, others make the decision. On reading the head, it appears that deferred members are put on the same level as everybody else but lot of commentary on it suggests otherwise. We, therefore, need clarification in that regard.

Head 13 states the Pensions Authority can put a payment system in place. I may be wrong, but on my reading of it, it seems that all an employer will have to do to prevent the process from being triggered is to enter into discussions. The Bill does not require an employer to agree to a funding proposal. In these circumstances the Pensions Authority cannot impose a funding rate as the employer has not failed to enter into negotiations and pay contributions under a funding proposal because there is no such proposal in place.

On the head dealing with equality, I have received correspondence, as I am sure everybody else has, from an organisation on pensions equality, to which the Chairman drew my attention yesterday. I subsequently received a hard copy of the documentation. The organisation represents a small group of people, mainly retired public servants, and makes a number of points. On this head, it claims that people are being denied an entitlement to survivor's pension for a same-sex spouse because they were unable to marry the person they wished to marry before they retired. The group also states the current legislation restricts access to the Circuit Court, unlike other equality claims under equality legislation for which the usual forum is the Workplace Relations Commission. Why not include a reference to both? The group raises a legitimate point in that regard. It also states public servants, following acceptance of the constitutional amendment, have an entitlement to a survivor's pension for a same-sex spouse but that the payment is not being calculated based on the entirety of their service.

I ask the officials to address those points.