Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who presented. This is an issue, as the Chairman has said, on which the committee has been pressing. We have raised the matter in private session and corresponded on it consistently over the past two years. I proposed amendments to the Social Welfare Bill in December 2016. These were not on the semi-State companies but on defined benefit schemes and one of the newspaper chains. We were assured at the time that speedy action would be taken. That is what we were promised and it is what we facilitated by moving our schedule as a committee in early 2017. We examined the heads of the Bill, which has gone into complete abeyance since. There are many valid concerns and serious questions need to be asked regarding any future auto-enrolment scheme also. I have concerns about a constitutional provision in respect of levies. There may, honestly, be issues in that regard. However, I strongly support the other matters.

It is important to note regarding employees such as the witnesses that the question of representation is a fundamental one. It is key. This is part of a relationship they have had. It was a collective relationship and the measures secured and required were the result of collective action. It is part of an ongoing relationship. I worked with Older & Bolder for many years and I believe fundamentally in the right of people to continue to organise and speak and represent themselves collectively. That is fundamental in relationships with organisations and companies. Certainly, a divide and conquer approach to individuals who must fight and take cases alone is not acceptable.

There is a particular question for semi-State bodies here. As pointed out very eloquently by the witnesses, this is not a matter in which people had a choice in many cases. It is not a provision which was there as an option for persons. It is one thing I would be cautious of when talking about auto-enrolment schemes and so forth. They are supplementary pension schemes but what was offered by semi-State companies is the core pension of employees. It is the fundamental basis for the witnesses to live the rest of their lives. In many cases, albeit not all, the option to engage with the contributory State pension was not available. When we have had presentations from the Department, it has been very clear on the different purposes of the contributory State pension which is, for example, aimed at ensuring an adequacy of income. It is a core standard. The supplementary pension is intended then to increase the level of replacement income. The idea is that the witnesses are entitled to fundamental security. This is not a speculative pension. It is not additional or supplementary. This is their security and they were required to pay into it. There should be a clear message, as I think it was put in the heads of the Bill, that this is a debt. It is something which is owed and there is a duty and responsibility in respect of its delivery. We need to be very clear. I am worried not only that there seems to be a slipping away but that there is an idea that we can have this debt but it will disappear after 12 months or we will walk away. Frankly, that is completely unacceptable. This is the core and foundational contract of employment. It is a contract made by the State via its bodies. That is fundamental and it can be fought tooth and nail.

As well as the idea that a responsibility cannot be evaded, there is a question of risk. I am very concerned by the correspondence we have received about the national broadcaster looking at a contract for advisers to look at mitigating risks. The risks to be mitigated do not include the risk that former employees may have inadequate replacement income or income to cover the fundamentals they need to plan the rest of their lives and to live well. The risks considered appear to be risks to the organisation, namely, regulatory, operational, legislative or legal risks. It is very clear and important. This was a big debate when we came to supplementary income. It was about where risk sat and whether it would be placed on the individual. Where does the risk sit and where does the guarantee sit? From my perspective, there must be a fundamental level in the proposed supplementary pension system whereby the risk sits with the State, which is proposing the scheme, or with the company if a pension company is contracted regarding a universal supplementary retirement savings scheme. One cannot have a situation where risk is spread out to the individuals given what we saw in 2008 when private pension schemes lost 38% of their value and individuals took the hit. That is fundamental. That is a fundamental argument on the supplementary scheme but it is much more serious for the witnesses because this is a core pension. This is first-tier pension whereas the supplementary pension is second-tier. I underscore that because we could get lost. I support the witnesses very much in that.

I would appreciate comments from the witnesses on their experience as persons paying into pensions of making choices at the time and what their expectations were. I ask about their plans, not as individuals, but for those they represent. What were the legitimate expectations? I imagine that very few of the witnesses were saying they hoped stocks would go up and that they would get a fabulous dividend. I think people went in with the idea that they were planning for the long term. I ask them to reflect on that. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on the concern that there is a very large tender contract of €500,000 going out on the mitigation of risks. Does anyone from RTÉ wish to comment on that? I thank the witnesses. I had one other point, but I have lost track of it in the discussion. I might get a chance to get back in later.