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

I support the general thrust of this group of amendments. This Bill allows trustees of a scheme to reduce the minimum benefit of a defined benefit pension scheme to €12,000. This is far too low. The purpose of amendments Nos. 15, 16, 18 to 20, inclusive, 23 to 25, inclusive, 27 and 28 is to ensure that the minimum pension benefit should not fall below the basic rate of the non-contributory State pension plus that of an adult dependent, because that is the level below which the State has decided a person cannot exist without undue hardship. For that reason, it makes sense to peg the minimum pension benefit at that level. We could pick different figures, but the State itself has claimed that the figure of just under €19,000 is the minimum amount a pensioner couple would require to survive. There is sense in that. Pegging the minimum pension benefit to a State pension payment would mean that pensions would be index-linked for the future. It is important to take this into account. Based on the rate of inflation, there should be commensurate increases in the minimum pension payable. As has been stated, in most cases people in private pension schemes also have an entitlement to a State contributory pension, but not all of them do. We need to ensure that we cater adequately for people who are not entitled to a contributory State pension.

When I spoke on this issue on Committee Stage and discussed taxpayer liability, the Minister stated that this does not arise in the case of a single insolvency situation but only in a double insolvency situation. Taxpayer liability would arise in a situation in which the minimum pension benefit was only €12,000, because in the case of a couple that couple would be entitled to claim a non-contributory pension for the spouse. This means the State will be picking up the tab and taxpayer liability is involved. To return to the arguments made this morning, what the Minister is doing here is shifting the financial responsibility away from the employer, even in a situation in which the company is profitable, and onto the State. There is no justification for doing this.

Liability does not arise only in regard to the entitlement of the spouse of a pensioner to a non-contributory pension, as there are other costs. There will be higher costs due to the provision of medical cards, fuel allowances, household benefits packages and so on. Therefore, there are significant potential costs for taxpayers, but there is no justification for shifting those costs onto them. For this reason, I believe the pension needs to be pegged at the higher level. Why should the Minister, on behalf of the State and taxpayers, take on the financial liability?

In regard to limiting pension benefits to €60,000, I found it extraordinary to hear the Minister this morning defending the right of people to retain pensions in excess of €60,000, given all that has happened in this country in recent years and given the collapse in so many pension schemes. It is amazing that the Minister seeks to defend these pensions. The people we are talking about with these highly generous pensions are people in senior management, bankers and so on.

The Minister is defending a situation whereby they would retain an entitlement to a pension in excess of €60,000 at the expense of people who may have a very small pension provision of €12,000. The Minister spoke about the response needing to be proportionate and fair, and this is true. How can the Minister possibly defend pensions in excess of €60,000 while cutting the pensions of people at a much lower level? In any such move the decision must be proportionate and fair and must also take into consideration the common good or public interest. I do not believe the Minister is doing this by allowing pensions in excess of €60,000 to continue. Overall there does not seem to be much coherence in this. The Minister needs to revise the figures. It is very unfortunate we are being squeezed like this so we will not have adequate time to discuss various aspects of it.

A right of audience for pensioners should be ensured and deferred pensioners should have a right to be consulted and have their say. We know this has not been possible since 2009 and the Labour Relations Commission has made this quite clear. This situation is opening up for several thousand deferred pensioners and it is very important they are given a voice. The Minister spoke about having several rounds of consultation but this is no substitute for a statutory arrangement whereby they can give their views and must be consulted prior to the Labour Relations Commission making an adjudication. It is unfortunate the Minister is overlooking the many deferred pensioners who might have contributed to a pension scheme over 37 or 38 years and suddenly found the rug pulled from under them. They had a legitimate expectation to get a reasonable pension and now this will not happen. They should be given a statutory voice in the process so they can be consulted and taken into consideration fully when trustees make a proposal on the restructuring of a scheme. It is quite unfair.

See this speech in context