Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

A number of matters arise from this. We had a motion in the House earlier, but the Minister did not answer most of the queries I put to her during that debate. She started to tell the House how many other groups would be affected and mentioned the Waterford Crystal group covering 1,774 people. The officials indicated that there were 11 schemes altogether, most of which have much smaller numbers. I understand that nine companies are involved. Those companies in which a defined benefit scheme was insolvent at the same time as the company had different agreed arrangements. Are they likely also to be able to avail of the new retrospective provisions which are being put in place? If so, has there been any attempt to work out a ballpark figure on the State's potential liability or is that a top secret given the ongoing mediation in respect of Waterford-Wedgwood pensioners and their beneficiaries?

I asked the Minister about the following but did not get a satisfactory answer either. Why has there been a delay? It appears today that the Government can deal with some of the issues around pensions, which is to be welcomed, but where is the money to come from? There is mention of a pensions levy, but that is thrown around every time money is needed. The pension levy is the saving grace, but that money has been committed three or four times to other projects. Will a Supplementary Estimate be required next year in the event of this legislation passing and agreement being reached with the pensioners? If it is not budgeted for and we have not seen it, it appears such an Estimate would be required.

Earlier, I highlighted the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013 and the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act. While the Minister said it was not necessary to make a change, it would be bad practice to fail to acknowledge that a change needs to be made to amendment No. 22. If the 2013 Act were to be amended, the Government would be dealing with the supplementary welfare allowance rather than the pensions aspect of things, which is what we are discussing.

See this speech in context