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

As we discussed earlier, this Government amendment relates to defined pensions and cases of double insolvency.

The Government amendment is broadly to be welcomed. It is rather technical and therefore the Minister of State should feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the amendment allows the Government to discharge moneys from the Central Fund to assist in situations that arose prior to the passage of the legislation in 2013 in which a pension fund or company became insolvent and the pensioners were left without proper pension entitlements. In particular, by allowing for this to apply in cases prior to the passing of the legislation in 2013, the Government can support or top-up insolvent pension funds in cases such as Waterford Crystal. Broadly, that is a good thing.

The problem is not so much with the amendment but the whole situation, since there is a limit of 50%. This means if a pension fund does not have the assets to give people the pension entitlements they had expected, then the State will top up payments to the level of 50% of those entitlements. This is on foot of a judgment in a case taken in the United Kingdom, Robins v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which 49% was offered. The relevant European Union directive does not specify the percentage but the complainant in the case claimed 49% was inadequate and on foot of the judgment the UK Government passed legislation which meant that the figure covered would be 89%.

I spoke to former workers of Waterford Crystal this morning. The deal is still in negotiation. Anyway, they maintain the 89% figure in the UK is far superior to what people are being given here. I made this point to the Minister earlier. She responded that the figure was 100% up to €12,000. The Minister of State or the officials can correct me but I assume the figure is 100% up to €12,000. Let us consider the example of the worker with whom I spoke this morning. His pension expectation and entitlement was €20,000 per year. The Minister said that qualifying pensioners would also get the State pension and that this makes a major difference. She suggested that the Irish State pension was far superior to the British pension and therefore if we total everything it is not such a bad deal.

On foot of the Minister's comments I talked to the Waterford Crystal workers again. They pointed out that the judgment or the directive stated specifically that in arriving at an acceptable top-up level state pension entitlements were not be considered and that they were irrelevant. The Waterford Crystal workers were categoric on the matter. They maintain the directive stated that the level of the State pension was irrelevant and that the case had to be judged on its own merits. Against this background 50% is rather miserable because is only 1% above the figure deemed unacceptable in the Robins case, as against the decision in the United Kingdom where a figure of 89% has been agreed.

Let us remember these workers worked for 30 or 40 years while paying pension contributions in good faith and in the belief that they would get a decent pension at the end of it. However, for the past six years they have been left high and dry not knowing what they will get but probably only a fraction of what they had hoped for. They maintain that the 50% figure is rather miserable compared to their legitimate expectations.

The amendment is positive in that it maintains we can secure an agreement retrospectively. However, the 50% figure remains and the workers want the Government to be fairer and more reasonable in any deal. The decision will be taken elsewhere and I understand the negotiations are ongoing. Anyway, the workers asked for that point to be made in the context of this legislation.

See this speech in context