Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There may be no statutory liability on employers in this respect, but employers entered into contracts with their former employees and where a party breaks a contract, there must be consequences for so doing. Clearly, in the world of the Government there are no consequences for employers in that regard.

The Minister has quoted from the OECD's report and boasted about having commissioned it, but what we need is a comprehensive response to the pensions crisis. We need the OECD's report and its recommendations to be implemented in full, not a piecemeal approach adopted, picking and choosing elements of it. It strikes me as incredible that the Minister who at one time would have been up in arms at the notion of spreading bank debt across the population has been complicit in continuing a policy started by the previous Government in that regard. That she would now proceed to spread employer debt across all pensioners turns the notion of fairness and justice on its head. There is no defence to what she is proposing to do.

What exactly is the difference between Ireland and all other European countries? What specifically is the difference between Ireland and the United Kingdom? Why is it that we do not have the same protections for pensioners introduced in other states? The only conclusion one can come to is that the Minister wants to continue in the bailout vein in which the country has been in recent years where the biggest vested interests and those with the greatest access to ministerial decisions can continue to walk away from their financial responsibilities and leave the ordinary citizen to carry the load. This is completely unacceptable.

See this speech in context