Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

There is an inherent contradiction in rushing this business. The Minister said the Minister for Finance will be required to make regulations. Will he make those regulations on Thursday or Friday when the measure has been passed by the Seanad or will we wait even further? While he and his Department are making those regulations, surely Members could have been given a few days to consider the measure. I would not have objected to coming back on Friday to deal with this matter properly, following consultation with experts and having made an informed decision.

I do not oppose the Government for the sake of doing so. I am happy to agree with Government measures and to say so if that is appropriate. I do not like speaking on the hoof. I like to make informed contributions. However, I will be obliged to debate this measure later this evening while not knowing all I should know about it. That will be a dereliction of my duty, through no fault of my own.

I hope the Minister will consider these reservations, although it is clear that she and her party have not done so. Had they done so, we would not be having this debate but would be discussing the Social Welfare Bill as originally presented.

I have a concern regarding the timing of this evening's business and the fact that these amendments will be taken at the very end of the three and a half hour debate on Committee Stage. I am concerned that we may not even reach them or discuss them individually. It will be a disgrace if we do not discuss these amendments and pass legislation of this importance with no effective debate and with no contributions from other members of Fine Gael, the Labour Party or Sinn Féin. I accept and agree with the changes in the order of priority to protect existing employees. However, I refer to certain exclusions. The Minister has included companies which are insolvent as well as their pension schemes and companies which are winding up.

My colleague, Deputy James Reilly and my party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny received an e-mail this evening from staff in SR Technics. Those concerned and the wider public are only now becoming aware of the proposals. As responsible citizens, they are concerned that legislation is being rushed through and they have heard rumours. It is unacceptable that such people, who have been through the mill in recent weeks, are relying on rumours to the effect that SR Technics will not be eligible for the scheme. I thank the Minister's officials for this morning's briefing, which was helpful even if it was arranged at the last minute. The staff in SR Technics are concerned that they will not be included in the scheme. There are many other examples of those not included, such as those from Bord na Móna, the ESB and so on. I would have preferred an opportunity to tease out in greater detail the reasons for the exclusions and whether there could be a possibility of tabling amendments such that such companies could be included. They are not included on the basis of the Minister's current decision on the matter but we should have had the opportunity to tease out the matter in greater detail.

I have concerns regarding the overall approach of the Minister in terms of post-retirement increases. I agree with it, but concerns remain related to the consequences of a period of high inflation which we do not have currently, but which will arise again. If inflation increases rapidly there in an effect in terms of people's pensions and there may be difficulties in this regard. We have seen how the dramatic increase in costs in recent years presents difficulties.

I will raise the matter if I have the opportunity on Committee Stage but I have concerns related to the overall policy and to why the Minister did not consider a cap on the priority of pensions for existing and deferred workers. Let us consider the situation of the pension of a bank chief executive in the region of €250,000. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it could be a good deal more but if such a bank were to wind up that chief executive would receive his pension. A teller in the same bank might be in receipt of a pension of €15,000 or €20,000. Given the Bill in its current form if the pension scheme of such a bank was de-funded by 50% the chief executive would receive €125,000 but the teller would receive a pension of only €7,500. The equity of such issues should have been considered in the legislation and should have been discussed by Members. Such situations are very unfair and powers should have been given to the trustees or, at least, to the Pensions Board, to examine the higher end of the scale in cases involving the winding up of a company.

I am also concerned about restructuring. What would constitute a substantial deficit and how will this matter be decided? I refer to the reduction in benefit. Will this apply on a pro rata basis only? The Minister could have legislated for such provisions under the restructuring section such that it would take place on the basis of a proportion of a person's income. I trust the Minister has considered the matter but when she did so, did any legal impediment arise in respect of proceeding in this way? Was the decision to proceed on a pro rata basis rather than on proportional income one of principle, policy or legality?

I accept the measures in respect of trustees making decisions in good faith. I am trying to include everything in case we do not reach these matters later on. It is important such measures are included but we must examine the differentiation between types of trustees. It is possible for a board of trustees of a pension fund to have an ordinary person appointed to it from the company. Usually, an associated trade union would have an appointee on the board of trustees also. Such people are likely to be regular employees of the company not expert in the whole areas of trustee law, investments and related matters. Usually, there would also be someone on such a board who is a professional trustee and works in that capacity for a living. Do the courts have the power to differentiate between the two such types? A professional person would be making informed decisions whereas an ordinary trustee - I use that term although such people may not wish for me to do so - would come from a different perspective and rely on expert information. It is possible to have a professional trustee who is honest and acting in good faith but who is negligent. I wish to ensure the court has the power to differentiate between such cases because negligence is not a issue which the courts should have the power to brush away because actions were taken in good faith. There have been examples in recent times where such changes have taken place for the right reasons.

I refer to payroll evidence. From a legal perspective I am unsure if an employee's name could still be given to a company. I imagine there could be difficulties if it were not given to such a company upon request. To some extent that could have the same effect as an employee appearing on a witness stand. Such a case would be less intimidating for the employee but the Minister indicated the possibility of an employer punishing an employee and if a name is on a payroll slip this difficulty would remain. Through discovery, the name would have to be given but I am unsure. Will the Minister clarify the matter?

I refer to the issue of annuities. I have several questions on this issue which I will attempt to put. How many schemes currently qualify under the new conditions? I presume such information is available at this stage. What is the value of assets in such schemes? How will the State account for the money and what will it do upon its receipt? Where will it go? It is possible that in the coming three years there could be a significant amount of money coming in which in theory, should be used to buy annuities, but some of which will not have to be paid out for a long period? Will such money be put in the Exchequer pot, which would be of great concern? Would such money be put in the National Pensions Reserve Fund, probably the best option, to prepare for future liabilities? It is important to receive clarity on such issues.

I have concerns regarding the restrictive nature of the scheme and those excluded from the perspective of annuities. What legal advice did the Minister receive in respect of EU competition law and State aid legislation? Did the Minister receive advice from the Attorney General? Has the Attorney General examined the vulnerability of the legislation and possible challenges on grounds of unfair State subsidies? Some companies may be in that position and others may not. Some companies may be in less of a position to go against the Government at this stage in terms of the bank schemes. When will the scheme be set up?

I refer to proposed amendments to the Bill. I object in strong terms to the ruling out of order of two amendments because they could involve a potential charge on the Revenue. I was told of this only ten minutes before the Minister spoke on the Order of Business. I realise the Ceann Comhairle receives advice from the Department before amendments are ruled out of order. However, amendments Nos. 6 and 9 refer to the jobseeker's allowance. I simply seek information and have asked the Minister to ensure sufficient courses are available to relevant people aged between 18 and 19 years and to ensure transport to such courses is available. If commitments were made by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Minister for Finance in the Budget Statement concerning available alternatives then there is no potential charge to the Exchequer because such matters have already been set up and are in place. My amendments should not have been ruled out of order on that basis. I will oppose the relevant Stages of the Bill on the basis that if I cannot access the information I cannot support the legislation. It would be wrong of me to do so. I believe neither of my amendments should have been ruled out of order. At least we should know the courses such young people will attend and the arrangements in place for them.

I have grave reservations in respect of how this matter has been handled, I will express these at various stages in the course of the evening and I will vote against some of the proposals.

See this speech in context