Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I put on record my complete dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Minister is dealing with this important legislation. The legislation is very complex, but we did not even have time to read it. There was a 30 minute briefing this morning, which was highly unsatisfactory. That is no reflection on the officials but there was only a window of 30 minutes this morning when Opposition spokespersons were available. That is simply not acceptable. The Minister owes the Opposition some explanation regarding why she is dealing with the legislation in this manner. It has all the signs of a rushed job. As I said earlier, we will rue the day in this House that we did this. It is complex legislation which is rushed, which has not been given adequate or appropriate consideration and undoubtedly we will be back here in the future amending what will amount to bad legislation.

The Minister has a bit of a nerve coming into the House and asking for co-operation on this legislation. We fully recognise the urgency associated with the Social Welfare Bill and we have facilitated the Minister in that regard. We would like to have had more time to discuss the various cuts which the Bill contains but we were prepared to deal with it tonight. However, we are not prepared to deal with a huge new and totally unrelated additional section dealing with pensions. For that reason the Minister will have no co-operation from the Labour Party in this or, indeed, for the foreseeable future in taking any legislation or dealing with matters in this House because she has shown utter disrespect for us by forcing this measure through the House today.

The Minister has not provided any explanation whatsoever of her reasons for doing so. We all accept there are situations where emergency legislation is required to be dealt with very quickly in a matter of hours. However, she has not provided any explanation. There are rumours around that some big scheme is about to collapse. I do not know whether there is anything in those rumours. If there is, the Minister should at least have given us an off-the-record briefing and explained the situation. If there is not some pressing reason, there is no justification for rushing this Bill through the House.

As I suggested to the Minister and the Chief Whip, this issue should have been taken as a separate pensions Bill. I had offered the co-operation of the Labour Party in the taking of such a Bill within the next fortnight. There must be some reason the Minister was not prepared to deal with it in that manner. I do not think it was bad-mindedness on the part of the Minister. She should have explained to Opposition spokespersons why she was not prepared to do that. Given her failure to do so and her disregard for the position in which we find ourselves, I can assure her that she will not have any co-operation from these benches. Having waited ten years for pension reform, she really has a nerve to come into the House and ram through proposals in the space of four hours. If we could wait ten years for these changes, why can we not wait another week or two and at least give this legislation the kind of consideration it requires?

Bringing forward this rushed legislation will not let the Minister off the hook with regard to the Robins case and I hope she does not for a moment think it will. She has bluffed her way through the implications of the Robins case when it comes to the implications for many different companies here where defined benefit schemes are in difficulties and the companies go bust. I refer in particular to Waterford Crystal. That case is proceeding apace. The Minister was given adequate warning and notice about it. As I said to her, sooner or later we are going to find ourselves before the European Court of Justice, on the basis of her failure to provide adequate pension cover for Waterford Crystal workers. She had an opportunity to do something about that. Not only was she given adequate notice about those problems and what she was supposed to have done following the Robins case, but the workers brought forward a viable proposal which the Minister could have accepted with regard to how the existing pension fund could have been dealt with and how that could have assisted for the capitalisation of a financial institution. They were given some sort of hearing from the Department of Finance. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Department, or certain people in the Department of Social and Family Affairs at the most senior level, did not quite follow what the proposal was, but there was a proposal put to the Minister for solving the problem at Waterford Crystal which she rejected. The Waterford Crystal people are in a difficulty and they will have to pursue the case themselves through the courts here and the European Court of Justice. One of the most regrettable aspects is that there is every likelihood that the Minister, through her inaction, will expose the Irish taxpayer to a considerable claim as a result of her failure to tackle the Waterford Crystal issue.

The most accurate way of describing what the Minister proposes is that it is like using a packet of sticking plasters on some of the aspects of our existing pension policy and pension law. These are minor changes and no excuse for not having a proper policy in place. Those minor changes will benefit some people but they have negative implications for others. In certain situations there will be pensioners who currently have the pension they understood they were entitled to and they receive their periodic cost of living increases. They left their company and were awarded a pension on certain terms and conditions. These proposals will change those terms and conditions for those pensioners.

There are a couple of issues involved. Those pensioners were given their pension on certain terms and conditions and there are big question marks over whether the Minister or anyone else has the legal authority to change those terms and conditions. We had a public debate about former Ministers and their pension entitlements and the view that a person's pension could not be touched as it is regarded as sacrosanct. It has been ruled in the courts that a pension constitutes property and we know that property rights are very well protected in the Constitution. Why do the same arguments not apply to defined benefit pensioners who will be affected? There must be legal issues with regard to anybody's right to interfere with a person's existing and established pension entitlements and this is of concern to me. An issue of equity is also involved and I note that this evening Age Action has urged the Government to revise these proposals to deal with insolvent private pension funds in order to protect pensioners within those schemes who are on the lowest incomes.

The Minister had options available to her for dealing with this issue but she did not choose them. Some form of cap should have been put on pensions because we will now have a situation where people on very small pensions will lose out on the cost of living increases, yet people on very big pensions continue to enjoy those pensions. There is no equity between pensioners, given that some are on huge pensions and some on very small pensions.

I ask the Minister to clarify whether these new provisions will apply to SR Technics and Waterford Crystal. A late amendment was a rushed job and was not thought through. It is proposed in an amendment that the provisions relating to the change in priorities will apply to recently wound-up schemes and this is welcome. What is not clear is the State annuity scheme, the PIPS scheme and whether or not SR Technics will be able to avail of that scheme, as one of the conditions of the State annuity scheme as set down in the legislation is that the company must be insolvent. We know that SR Technics is not insolvent. They are seeking to walk away and leave liabilities behind them, but it is a profitable company. They are just moving to an alternative location. Will the Minister clarify whether SR Technics employees will be able to avail of the State annuity scheme? Will Waterford Crystal workers also qualify? We deserve that explanation tonight.

What happens at the end of the three-year pilot? Can the Minister withdraw from it if it is not a satisfactory scheme and does not work out as planned? What will happen then? Can these provisions be applied to existing pensioners who already have an increasing pension? While they may not lose anything in the pension there are questions over the cost of living increases. These provisions still allow companies to walk away and leave pension liabilities behind them and that is at the nub of the matter. The Minister is tinkering at the edges, as she did in December. The fundamental point that there is no legal responsibility on companies to ensure there is adequate pension provision is not dealt with. That is very regrettable.

While I welcome the State annuity scheme for insolvent companies, it should be extended to SR Technics and offered to other schemes. There are very strong arguments for having a State annuity scheme and I argued for such a scheme recently during Question Time. Why can there not be an extension to incorporate such a scheme? Why must the company be insolvent? Why are State annuities not generally available? I do not necessarily accept the arguments put forward by officials from the Minister's Department this morning. There is an element of political decision on this. There is a very strong case for making State annuities generally available. We know the costs of the middle-men in the industry are very high and it makes a lot of sense to provide access to better value annuities that are less expensive than commercial ones.

I welcome the better regulation proposed on companies that do not pass on the pension contributions and the changes in terms of evidence. That is a good move. It probably still will not be possible to prevent a court case against the State because this does nothing about guaranteeing an over 50% provision. We will revisit that in the not too distant future.

What, if any, consultation has taken place with representatives of older people? It is all very well for the Minister to say she is under pressure from the unions in the national talks and wants a greater spread in terms of entitlements. These have serious implications for existing pensioners. Did the Minister consult with anybody on that? There should have been adequate consultation. Was the Pensions Ombudsman consulted on these proposals?

To which pensioners will the proposals apply? How many pensioners will lose a cost of living increment? What information will be made available to pensioners on the possible impact on them? From when will the new changes apply? If a pensioner already has a cost of living increase from this year will that be clawed back? How will it work? What notice must a pension fund give a pensioner before it cancels a cost of living increase? I can see no requirement in the Bill for pension funds to write or otherwise notify or inform existing pensioners. What happens if inflation reaches 10% again? There is no provision in the Bill to deal with that for existing pensioners.

Overall I am very disappointed with the Minister's approach to this and it leaves a large number of unanswered questions which will have to be revisited.

See this speech in context