Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome there has been an attempt to address the issue. Last year, I proposed a Report Stage amendment to the Social Welfare Bill in respect to a similar scheme. This particular approach has been taken because I identified the concerns about solvent firms. One of the criteria I suggested is such a firm would not be able to close a defined benefit scheme until it had reached 90% of its funding standard. I appreciate notice is required but I have some concern about the early wind-up of a scheme. Head 7 says a reduced period can only be agreed where it is in the best interest of members. It is not very clear how the best interest of members is to be determined. It mentions a consultation period and that its form will be prescribed. Where will the ultimate determinant of the best interest of members fit? Will it be solely with the trustees? Will there be objective measures? I am not suggesting my version was perfect because it absolutely was not. There are many versions. Will there be objective standards in terms of the best interest of members to ensure a minimal return for example?

I share the concerns about the employer entering negotiation. Is there any limit to the period in which an employer could avoid the impact of head 13, which provides that the Pension Authority could set out a schedule of contributions because there has been a prolonged period of negotiation? I have those two specific concerns. Others have addressed the concern about pension equality and whether it will be possible to extend the period in respect of post-retirement spousal benefit so that it would also apply to schemes where persons have retired already but have been adversely impacted.

My final question is on something that will be the subject of an amendment.

We can discuss it in more detail at a later date.

The other major pension inequality in Ireland is pension inequality for women and the acknowledged disparity in the averaging system that is impacting people in two ways. The refusal to backdate and address what is acknowledged as an unfair system means that people who have made the same amount of contributions as others are disadvantaged by the averaging rules. The second impact is the embedding of further losses for people affected by that unfair system as a result of the 2012 changes. I would respectfully suggest that either the 2012 changes are reversed or a measure to address the problems of averaging, pending the move to a total contribution approach, is introduced, or both.