John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Penrose noted that my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, has tabled a Bill on the same matter. The Deputy mentioned my name, too, but in the context of this issue, I am his master's voice to Deputy O'Dea. It would not be within my grasp to produce a pensions protection Bill with a level of detail that could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny as a Bill that Deputy O'Dea is capable of producing. Deputy Penrose's Bill is the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, while Deputy O'Dea's is the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. Nevertheless, we will support the Bill before us. I note the Minister has left the Chamber.

I wish to make a couple of points on behalf of my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, as well as some personal comments that any Deputy might make. They relate to the importance and integrity of a person's pension. In the lifetime of this Dáil, which is approaching four years, there have been multiple examples of employees who sailed along in their professions and lives on the understanding that when they retired, there would be a pot to which they had contributed generously, only to discover the shocking news that it did not exist. It is difficult to find an analogy for it but one might say it is like a passenger on a jumbo jet knocking on the cockpit door, only to discover there is nobody there and that the passenger is alone. It must be truly devastating to discover that the basis for one's future after retirement has disappeared. I accept what the Minister stated about Ireland being full of examples in industry of great employers who have provided great pension schemes and delivered on them with integrity to their employees.

Many of them who would be known to me managed to achieve longevity and ended up retired for longer than they had worked for. They continued to receive the benefits to which they and their employers had contributed over the years.

I thought it was interesting that the Minister spent the bulk of her response criticising Deputy Penrose's Bill without really outlining, other than in very brief terms, where the Government is on this issue. Amendments will be considered when we move on to Committee Stage of the Government Bill. In my relatively recent and naive experience, this Dáil will not last long enough for the Government's proposals, which have been in front of us since 2017, to be considered. It is an indictment of the Government's attitude to this matter that it will not be resolved in any concrete or full way before we go to the country. The issue of defined benefit schemes will drift on into the next Parliament. Deputies Penrose and O'Dea have been pointing to the Government's tardiness and lack of urgency with regard to this issue, which is extremely urgent for the public.

Fianna Fáil has proposed the Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2017 as a means of addressing this issue. Our comprehensive Bill has been passed on Second Stage and is now being held up by a money message. I have no doubt that a similar fate may await the legislation that Deputy Penrose has brought before the House this evening. I am aware that the Deputy is not seeking another mandate in this House. I admire his energy, dynamism and interest in producing and presenting legislation before the House. Many colleagues of mine on this side of the House are admirers of the Deputy. It is a credit to him that at this potentially late stage in the lifetime of this Dáil, he continues to be determined to drive meaningful legislation through this House.

We are supporting the Bill before the House. Deputy Penrose has said that he is open to amendments. Equally, Deputy O'Dea is open to amendments in the case of his Bill. We will make any necessary amendments to both Bills on Committee Stage to ensure they are as robust as possible. Our Bill provides for an appeals mechanism that may be used when a pension is being wound up by the trustees of the scheme. Furthermore, our Bill compels the Pensions Authority to conduct a study of how liabilities are calculated and to report back to this House within six months. We have some reservations about the UK model. Such matters can be thrashed out on Committee Stage. The purpose of our Bill, like Deputy Penrose's Bill, is to ensure employers meet their obligations in respect of defined benefit schemes when such schemes are being wound up.

A couple of points need to be made because they were not addressed by the Minister. The Government has failed to address this issue. Almost three years have passed since the general scheme of the social welfare and pensions Bill 2017, which ultimately became the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017, was published. It contained a number of measures relating to defined benefit pension schemes. Even though the Second Stage debate on the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017 concluded on 4 October 2017, which is more than two years ago, and Government approval for additional provisions in the Bill was finalised 18 months ago, nothing has happened since. Deputies on this side of the House believe the Minister has sat on her hands. She has failed to tackle this issue for once and for all. Nothing she has said today gives us the impression that the matter will be brought to a conclusion soon. It seems to Opposition Deputies that this is another case of the Government making announcements but not actually delivering.

Deputy Penrose made a number of points that I do not want to repeat for the sake of repeating. There is one point I would like to reinforce, however. The Deputy is particularly passionate about the closure of defined benefit pension schemes by large solvent companies. This phenomenon needs to be addressed. In Ireland, we have seen a number of cases in which profitable companies that pay dividends have decided to wind down defined benefit pension schemes to the detriment of members of the scheme. This is the kind of stuff that happened at the turn of the 20th century, in an era before we had trade unions and workers' rights. At that time, we had not achieved gains like moves towards equality, improvements in labour laws and protections for people against big corporations. As we approach 2020, it is hard to believe we are fighting once more to prevent some corporations from getting their grubby hands on what is not rightfully theirs.

I emphasise that some companies have been some great employers in this country. I do not know whether they are still great. In Dublin, Guinness offered the Rolls-Royce of pension schemes and looked after its workers exceptionally well. That is certainly what I would have reckoned over the years. It was a model scheme. Many other employers did likewise and continue to do likewise. All companies must be compelled to treat the members of their pension schemes in an equitable manner. Deputies O'Dea and Penrose have introduced legislation to ensure healthy companies cannot avoid their responsibilities to pension funds that are in crisis. The issue of employer responsibility is a central part of the Fianna Fáil legislation and of Deputy Penrose's legislation. I apologise to Deputy Brady for omitting to include him in my comments. He was out of my line of sight. I know he is supportive of the efforts that are being made in this regard.

More and more companies, including profitable companies, are deliberately choosing to wind up defined benefit pension schemes. The Minister is allowing them to walk away from these debts, which is not something that is permitted in other jurisdictions. There can be no justification for this. It would be a bad day if we were to seek to justify it. It has become part of the lexicon to say that this happens. It has been part of the conversation. If this Government is to have any legacy as it comes to the conclusion of its term in office, it must make right the most unjust scenario in which people can write off these debts, take what is not rightfully theirs or deny others what it rightfully theirs, thereby leaving ordinary small people to pick up the remnants of these pension schemes as they try to survive into what ought to be their comfortable retirement years. I do not want to use a cliché by referring to "twilight years". The Government must correct this wrong by making it impossible for ordinary people to be at the mercy of people who do not play to the same kind of rules as everybody else. Ordinary people depend on this House to make the rules for them, to protect them and to ensure their futures are secure.

See this speech in context