Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fundamental inequalities are left unaddressed despite the original proposals the Minister made in 2011. To protect high-end pensions, deferred workers approaching retirement will remain woefully unprotected. When pension funds get into difficulty, the response should not be about protecting pensioners versus protecting contributors who have yet to retire, it should be about protecting pensioners of today and tomorrow. In that regard, this Bill is not strong enough. On Committee Stage, we must strengthen the legislation to ensure all pensioners are protected without putting an undue burden on the State.

I have a problem with the way this was introduced. Despite the much hyped Dáil reform proposals, the heads were not put before a committee nor was there any pre-legislative Stage. It was sent straight to the Seanad after it was published. At each Stage since, there has not been the conventional two-week gap which would allow Members, the Minister, the Department or the Bills Office the time to consider the debate and to prepare amendments.

While I welcome the departmental briefing on legislation to Opposition spokespersons, it was at a moment’s notice. My parliamentary assistant, Miriam Murphy, attended it and probably tortured the officials with loads of questions. I, by chance, was checking e-mails and told her the briefing was in 15 minutes. The e-mail had been sent out an hour before the briefing. That is not the best way to do business.

Hopefully in the future, the Minister will give enough time for the Deputies to get the briefing so that we can contemplate what are substantial changes to the pension regime in this country.

The Minister commissioned Mercer to write a report on the wind-up priorities of pension schemes at the end of 2012. I do not think it has ever been published. We have searched everywhere on the website, and that would have been a vital report to have in front of us, given that it was to examine the points we are raising here today. The purpose of the review was to determine to what extent the existing pensioner priority should be revised to provide for a different approach to the distribution of assets in the wind-up of an underfunded pension scheme. That is exactly what we are talking about, but it is not in front of us. Can it be published, or at least circulated to us so that we can use it? It might back up the Minister's contentions and the reasons for this Bill, or it might not. We can debate that.

This Bill is an improvement, but it does not go far enough. Where a scheme fund is in deficit, the trustees may need to wind it up or restructure it. In the case of a wind-up, the current priority order means that after the AVCs, the fund's assets must first be used to discharge up to 100% of the liability to existing pensioners. Only then can the active and deferred members get the benefits they have accrued, by which time there may be little or nothing left in the fund. In such circumstances, workers approaching retirement age are particularly hard hit.

This Bill lists six priorities to govern the distribution of a fund in the event of a scheme wind-up, but I would propose eight priorities. I will go into detail if I have time today, but I have submitted amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

The Minister stated that most people have a State contributory pension and that the occupational pension is additional to that, giving the impression that pensioners will have 100% protection up to €24,000, with €12,000 as part of the non-contributory pension. However, not everybody affected in this Bill is entitled to a State pension. In the case of the ESB pension scheme alone, I was told that 11,000 members are not entitled to a State pension because they began work before 1996 and have therefore been paying the wrong stamp. I might be wrong, but that is what was-----

See this speech in context