Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Rural Independent Group, I compliment Deputy Willie O'Dea on bringing forward the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017. I know that others, Deputy Willie Penrose included, brought forward a similar Bill recently.

We have seen huge efforts by unscrupulous big businesses to avoid supporting pension schemes for people who have rightly earned their benefits. Ar an gcéad dul síos, many small businesses and companies pay into such schemes, as do their employees. There is a good relationship and there are honest people involved. We cannot demonise all employers because many of them are and have been for decades supportive of schemes and engaged with their workers in the process, sometimes even without trade unions. Arrangements are in place which are time-honoured and we must salute these companies. Unfortunately, however, there are pressures, as well as significant greed, as seen in vulture companies. Any company that would try to engage in this kind of action to deny workers payback for their valued and gainful employment and the way in which they supported it to get to where it is a vulture company. These rogue employers will be very hard to stop, but the State must have the resources, the creative accountants and legal people in the Office of the Attorney General and elsewhere to ensure the passage of the Bill. I hope the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, will not oppose it, although I think he will. I do not know why he intends to do so, given the new politics. How many times must the Government be defeated to understand this is a new situation. We should encourage the introduction of Private Members' Bills, especially when they are so necessary and there is such a void in legislation. We were talking about legislation such as the Pensions Act 1990 and its many weaknesses. We must work as a Legislature to deal where we can with issues such as this to have watertight legislation and rules companies cannot evade.

We know what happened in Waterford Glass, a wonderful company which is close to my heart and that of Deputy Mary Butler. I must declare an interest: I have a brother and a sister who worked for years in its Dungarvan plant. It was world-renowned, especially in the United States. It was gobbled up and taken over and greed again got in the way. We are aware of the efforts that had to be made by the trade unions and other movements and politicians at the time to try to cobble something together and the taxpayer had to pick up the tab. It was a costly experience. The Minister has not been in government the whole time since; I am just making the point that we are too slow in closing such loopholes, especially when they affect big business. I encourage big business and support the corporation tax rate and the attraction of big businesses, but they cannot be allowed to get away with what they should not get away with. These are just basic rules and guidelines and good business and proper management practices so as not to allow room for creative accountants and so-called smart-arse solicitors and barristers who think they can pick at them. That is what happens with legislation. That is what they are paid to do and what they claim in their CVs they can do.

The Government needs to wake up. We need a public service with officials who receive proper advice and can see the loopholes. Legislation can be passed with the best will in the world, but there may be unintended consequences. We need to be quicker to react because every day of the week small business people with limited resources have to react in situations where they have no power over what big companies can do. They might be a husband and a wife who are running a business, two brothers or two sisters; it could be anybody. They have to deal with a lot of legislation. I even heard on Marian Finucane's radio programme on Sunday that it had been decided - I do not know from where this came, as I certainly did not see the legislation that passed through the House - to allow 20 days' paid leave to an employee in the Civil Service if his or her partner or spouse passed away. That is tragic and traumatic, but if such a provision were to be introduced in the private sector, small employers would not be able to afford or handle it. They have certain arrangements in place and look after their staff in such cases. They are very flexible and it works both ways for employees and employers. It is fine if the public purse pays but not otherwise.

It affects everybody who is able to do it. That kind of onerous provision on small and medium enterprises, SMEs, is a step too far. I am not anti-worker or against someone grieving. Most of those companies are very helpful and understanding and want a good relationship, want their employees to have that relationship and allow them to grieve and have schemes in place to support them.

This legislation is long overdue. I note from the Minister's contribution that an employee may bring a challenge to the High Court but at what cost? Who will pay for that challenge? That is closing the gate when the horse has well bolted, got in the horsebox and gone home and is in the stable, a different stable, not the one he should be in. We must look into that as well.

The Minister cannot expect employees to fight the battle afterwards and go to court and whatever. We must have the resources of the State. The Minister must ensure he has the brightest and best to advise on this legislation. Straightaway when it is enacted they will be picking on it, like digging the first field of potatoes and the crows land, then the jackdaws and then the scarecrows and the whole lot will come along. These are the same. They are vultures in any language. We need to be there, ready, willing and able to tackle them and send them back to where they came from with their smartarse accountants and their slimy legal aides. I could call them something stronger but I will not.

There is no legal onus on the company to advise the trustees. That is an awful flaw. I am trustee of many companies limited by guarantee and have to take those responsibilities seriously. We have seen what went on in a few credit unions and how one or two bad apples can destroy the whole batch. The scandal of big business, ducking and diving, conniving and contriving to denude people of the rights they have accrued with these defined schemes is not acceptable. It is more distasteful when they are high-powered business people and we can see their hands over everything that moves in Éire, whether it is underground or overground, wind or water. The only thing they do not take charge of is foul wind. Next they will have that handicapped as well.

This Bill and Deputy Willie Penrose's Bill are very timely. Surely, instead of putting this to a vote and having the Government defeated once again, unless it is trying to break a record for the number of times a Government can be defeated in one term, the Minister could have a debate on an amalgam of the three, with the legal expertise the Minister can provide. He could try to deal with the situation and not have any more injustices perpetrated on ordinary decent employees who made their life's commitment to those companies and not have creative accountants and smart alecs laughing all the way to the bank.

See this speech in context