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

We must realise that this is the first time we are allowing the pensions of existing pensioners to potentially be reduced. That is a very serious matter. It is being done in the name of fairness, but the point of the amendments is to question if it is fair to allow this against the backdrop of a successful, profitable, viable company. The reality is that some employers have exploited the lack of clarity in order to walk away from their responsibilities. The Minister has said these companies engaged on a voluntary basis. It is true that there was no statutory obligation on them to set up a scheme, but they did and made an obligation; it was not voluntary for their employees. There are people paying into pension schemes who, for every euro they put in, will only get back 32 cent. It is dead money, but it is a condition of their employment; therefore, it was not voluntary for them. There is a legal obligation and the commercial courts have stated it is a contingent liability in these circumstances.

The Minister mentioned that FRS 17 was a factor. While it has been in existence since the 1980s, it was only in the late 1990s that some companies started to use it as an measure. Therefore, it is not an excuse. The Pensions Board has adjudicated on the issue and stated it does not replace the statutory obligation. For the Minister to argue that a defined benefit pension scheme and putting the onus on employers would give a competitive advantage to other companies that do not such schemes is unbelievable. That is a recipe for brute neoliberalism. She is nearly arguing in favour of having a race to the bottom. The same argument could made about providing decent pay levels, sick pay schemes and so on. Is the answer to have none of these employee benefits or decent conditions of work because it might put a company at a competitive disadvantage? Of course, it is not. It is a matter for us to tighten things up to ensure all employers stand by such schemes.

The Minister has made the point that a number of schemes have been restructured, but at what price? Under the new arrangement, the pain is being shared and the Minister is including pensioners for the first time, but if she were to take on board some of the amendments, she could tighten employer responsibility.

See this speech in context