Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who has contributed. I thank those supporting the Bill, including Deputies Róisín Shortall and John Brady. I thank Sinn Féin, AAA-PBP and, needless to say, my colleagues.

Deputy John Brady made a particular point. I tabled an amendment as long ago as 2014. I tabled it again in 2015. On each occasion the Government shot it down. The amendment was along the lines of what is contained in Deputy John Brady's Bill. I mean no disrespect. Having studied the situation in the United Kingdom closely, I decided to bring in a moderated version of the Bill because of the difficulties I saw with it. I did not know about them until I got time to study it. Having done that, I prepared the Bill.

I am aware that Deputy John Brady has prepared a Bill and that Deputy Willie Penrose has prepared another Bill. Fianna Fáil is taking Private Members' time tonight. We decided this was the issue we would raise during Private Members' time. It does not really matter to me which Bill comes first. If the Sinn Féin Bill or the Labour Party Bill had come first, we would have supported either of them equally because we support the principle. I am willing to work with my two Opposition colleagues in advance of the legislation the Minister intends to bring forward sometime in March. However, I do not have great expectations for that legislation, judging from the attitude of the Minister at Question Time last week, as well as tonight. I find his position somewhat strange in view of the fact that I remember the time when the entire country was discussing the situation at Independent News & Media. The Minister and I were in RTE on a television programme. The Minister proceeded to tell the nation that he was so concerned he would rush to the High Court the following morning and intervene through the Attorney General or whatever. I wonder what became of that intervention.

I appreciate the fact that the Minister recognises that something has to be done about the minimum funding standard. He is proposing to do precisely what I have suggested in section 4.

I must confess to being disappointed in respect of the other matter. We are not talking about something new. We are not reinventing the wheel. This type of legislation has been in existence in the United Kingdom for the past 21 years. When it was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1995, that country was in the teeth of a vicious recession. This was at the end of the Thatcher Government of the late 1980s and the early 1990s. There were problems with deficits. Schemes were under pressure. All the arguments were trotted out. The UK Government at the time, in its wisdom, decided that the best thing was to ensure the balance of advantage lay with protecting the member or the person who had paid into the scheme as opposed to being overly concerned about the employer. Numerous debates and discussions have taken place in the United Kingdom in recent years. Some have argued that section 75 protection, which we are seeking to give in this Bill, should be withdrawn. Arguments were made in favour of it by some – there are several arguments in favour of it. Counter arguments were made by others. The preponderance of opinion on all sides, including the Tory Government at the time, was that the balance of advantage should lie with the need to protect the workers.

The Minister's argument seems to be reduced to a simple position. He sets out the familiar arguments on both sides, then he takes the side of the employers. He takes the side of the people who walk away. This means solvent employers can walk away from pension schemes that they have let run down to the detriment of their employees. It is simply a question of what people believe or what side they wish to take.

I have been surprised by some of the language used in the Minister's response. He has made reference to no readily available accurate consistent measure of solvency. Has the Minister ever heard of bankruptcy law? The courts are adjudicating every day of the week. Accountants are adjudicating. Liquidators are adjudicating on whether a company has become insolvent. The Minister made reference to there being no connection between a company being solvent or having net revenues at a given point in time and that company's ability to fund a scheme for the long term. Having worked for several years in the largest accountancy firm in the country, I am fully aware of the position. I can inform the House what it is: all that is meaningless jargon. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that sometimes one excuse is more believable than several. I am disappointed with the Minister's response. We will be pushing the Bill to a vote on Thursday.

See this speech in context