Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

To pick up on some of the points that have been made, we are all very much aware of the problems that have been experienced by members of defined benefit schemes that have gone into a wind-up situation, essentially leaving people pauperised in their retirement. In taking their case the Waterford Crystal workers did us all a favour and showed up the Irish State as being behind its peers in Europe in terms of standing by its responsibilities to elderly citizens. This Bill seeks to address some of those issues, but I agree with my colleagues that it does not do that sufficiently because, as it stands, pensioners who are getting pensions from defined benefit schemes have their rights protected. In essence, this Bill allows us, for the first time, to erode the entitlements of existing pensioners. That is not good enough and it is not acceptable. It is particularly unacceptable at the levels the Minister has set. The best defined benefit pension schemes paid 50% or two thirds of the final salary on retirement. The idea that we would set a limit or enable a cut of potentially 10% to those who have a paltry €12,000 in their pension fund is not acceptable. At a minimum it should be at least two thirds of the average industrial wage and set somewhere in the region of a minimum of €24,000. On the other hand, the Minister had an opportunity to use this legislation to hit some of the individuals in our society who have obscene pension pots. That opportunity was not taken because even the idea of taking or allowing the taking of 20% from somebody who has a six-figure pension pot is ridiculous. I will table amendments seeking that the amount be 50% or more. Nobody needs a post-retirement income of anything like that sum. That is remiss of the Minister. Ordinary pensioners should not be made to pay a price for a crisis in pension funds which was not of their making.

Much of this gets to the heart of the way we treat old people in Irish society.

Our record is not good in that regard. Irish pensions cost 6% of GDP. One might think that was loads of money until one looked at a society such as Italy, which spends 15% of GDP on pensions. There is an understanding and realisation that older people are generally respected and treated better in societies such as Italy's. That is one we should aspire to. The problem with our pension scheme, perpetuated in this legislation, is that it relies on an inadequate State pension and on subsidising private pension funds that speculate on the global capitalist market to make money. It is a fallacy, it does not work and it has been a contributor to pension funds getting into difficulty. We must stand this on its head and look at another way around our pension schemes and the way in which the Irish State funds and subsidises pensions to the tune of billions. The beneficiaries of subsidy are the top 20% of earners.

The types of pension scheme we stand by are those of people who are wealthy in employment and become even wealthier after retirement. That is not fair and it understates the value of the contribution by carers, volunteers and those who engage in backbreaking physical work that does not attract so much remuneration. They are also entitled to live in dignity in their retirement.

The striking figure is that only 20% do not have the State pension as the major component of their income. The majority of elderly people in Ireland have relatively modest pension pots. They should be protected across the board. Organisations such as the ESB and the Irish aviation pension fund have schemes with up to 30,000 members. People had a reasonable expectation of a decent retirement and they are entitled to it. The measures proposed by some of the trustees of the schemes, which see deferred pensioners lose 40% to 50% of what they thought they would get on retirement, are unacceptable. One of the key points raised in the Seanad, which the Minister might like to address, is the feeling of disenfranchisement among pensioner groups and deferred pensioners. They do not have a place at the table when problems occur. This applies to pension schemes with problems. They have a clear defined interest in the scheme but they have no place at the table at the Labour Relations Commission. The importance of adding to the framework a right of audience for pensioner groups and deferred pensioner groups is critical. Their slogan is "Nothing about us without us," which is a basic democratic demand. They should be included in any scenario, but they are currently excluded.

In many cases, it was a condition of people's employment to join pension schemes. Companies - including those in which I worked, such as Aer Lingus - have some neck, when sitting on a cash pot of €1 billion, to fail in their responsibilities to loyal members of staff, including pensioners, active members and deferred pensioners. The legislation does not ensure that an organisation such as that is required to stand over the benefits of the pension scheme. It lets them off the hook, although it is implied that they are responsible. There is no legislation that makes them responsible for making up the deficit, and that is not good enough. We are not taking into account the OECD guidelines and we are leaving pensioners to pay the price. The legislation needs to be amended. While it has good objectives, it is taking money out of the pockets of hard-pressed pensioners in order to pay for a crisis that was not of their creation.

See this speech in context