Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I know that some of the things I wish to say are in order and I will find out if the other things are in order when I say them. The substantive issue here is the Minister's amendment. I understand that this amendment will give power to the Minister to authorise payments from the Central Fund to pension schemes that were insolvent but predate the passing of the 2013 legislation. If I am correct, the aim is to address the problems that arose at Waterford Crystal but I did not see a copy of the Minister's speech and I did not hear all of it. If I am correct about this amendment the workers will welcome it. I spoke to some of the workers before coming into the House and I believe negotiations are going on to resolve the terrible situation in which they find themselves.

It is appropriate that this should be discussed in the Dáil today because I was informed of another tragedy this morning. One of the Waterford Crystal workers died this morning. He had 40 years of service at the company but, because this matter dragged on for six years, he will never get his pension entitlement.

Whatever changes are made or whatever deal is concluded in respect of Waterford Crystal will not benefit him. I was informed by the same Waterford Crystal worker that in total 20 Waterford Crystal workers have died since the closure of the plant in 2009 and, equally, none of them will benefit. Their widows are distraught after the deaths of their partners and so on. Whatever comes out, they will not benefit from it.

What they got on the basis of what was left in the scheme was in the region of between 18% and 28% of what they were entitled to, far short of what they should have got. These people worked for years, contributed to the scheme and had an expectation of their pension entitlement at the end of it. However, for six years now they have got only a fraction of it and some will have got nothing because they have passed away since. That is a rather tragic and awful situation for workers who worked hard all their lives with a legitimate expectation of a decent pension at the end of it.

As I understand it, this amendment tries to deal with this situation retrospectively. It relates to the primary legislation and involves what the worker I was talking to this morning described as the miserable and cynical figure of 50%. That is the limit in terms of what can be paid out. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the matter in her response because the legislation passed at the end of 2013 referred to a figure of 50%. This legislation refers to the same figure and, therefore, I assume in so far as the Minister is attempting to deal with situations that predate the legislation, the 50% figure still holds. The Waterford Crystal worker put it to me that this was cynical given the Robins case ruling, in which a 49% payout was deemed inadequate by the European courts in respect of discharging the requirements of the directive. These requirements are not specific but when the courts were asked to rule on the matter they determined that 49% was inadequate. In response, the British Government introduced a figure of 89%. By contrast, we have picked a figure 1% over the 49% which the European courts deemed inadequate. The worker I was talking to today asked why was it that our Government seems to have less respect for the people of Waterford Crystal or for that matter any defined benefit pensioners and why does it deem them worthy of less decent treatment than the treatment of pensioners across the water by their government. That was the point made to me on the telephone by a Waterford Crystal worker this morning. Perhaps the Minister can come back to me on the matter. I am passing it on from the horse's mouth.

Certainly, we must deal with these issues and I am keen for clarity. I accept the bona fides of the person I was talking to who, by the way, is one of the pensioners affected. At the very least this deserves a proper discussion. The appeal he asked me to pass on to the Minister was to the effect that the Waterford Crystal workers should be treated decently in the negotiations which, I understand, are ongoing. As far as the pensioners involved are concerned 50% is not good enough. We should be considering something approximating the British figure of 89% of entitlements in respect of the support the Government should give for insolvent funds.

There is another amendment I wish the Minister had included in the Bill. We will probably get a chance to discuss it later. I am keen to see an emergency measure to deal with the area of rent allowance. This is an emergency. The Minister has brought in late amendments to deal with other matters and I am keen to see similar emergency measures to deal with the crisis of rent allowance, since the associated caps are directly leading to the homelessness crisis.

See this speech in context