Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all who contributed, particularly Deputies Lahart and Brady. I assure Deputy Brady that I have no problem accepting the amendment he has spoken of to strengthen the Bill. We all have one common objective - there is no one-upmanship - which is ensuring that this achieves the very noble objective of protecting employees. What I have heard from the Minister is an employers charter. It was like something that had come from IBEC.

In fact, IBEC would not have written it so well. I agree that there are many great employers who go above and beyond the call of duty in fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities in terms of pension schemes. This Bill is not intended to deal with those types of employers, because they are already meeting their obligations. As the Minister correctly noted, there are many employers who were supportive of schemes over many years and paid out to employees under them. Those schemes did not go into deficit or are unlikely to go into deficit in the future and they are not the object of this Bill.

The Minister and Minister of State, or the person who wrote their speeches, have deliberately misconstrued the objectives of the legislation I have brought forward, which should, of course, be read in conjunction with the pensions legislation that is already in place. It proposes to insert a new section 44A into the 1990 Act and it should be construed in conjunction with the other provisions of that Act. In what way does my proposal come into conflict, as the Minister suggested, with various aspects of the existing legislation? That is a novel proposition and one I have not previously encountered in almost 28 years in the Dáil. As I said, this Bill will be read in conjunction with other legislation, and a court seeking to construe the law would look at the whole legislative framework. I am merely seeking to insert a new provision in the existing legislation in the same way that Deputies Brady and O'Dea are proposing to do in their respective Bills. In short, we are seeking to amend the Pensions Act to address its lopsided provisions.

I accept the Minister's point that pension provision involves a tripartite arrangement comprising the employer, employees and trustees. However, one group, the employees, is in an inferior position in that three-legged stool. When things become difficult and there is any smell of trouble, employers are in the dominant position and will gather up their forces and run for the hills. I am talking about solvent employers, some of whom were named by Deputy Brady and me. None of them is on the margins of viability. In fact, they are the wealthiest of the wealthy. I salute Alan O'Leary and Ray Mitchell, the SIPTU representatives who represented their members in Ringaskiddy and Little Island in the negotiations with Pfizer. After a solid engagement and with the company's intention being to move from defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme, even on a going forward basis, the workers held out and won a battle. One must salute SIPTU and the other unions that are fighting on behalf of their members. I understand Unite is negotiating on behalf of employees in Irish Life. We should salute all trade unions. If they were not there, we would be looking at a steamroller going over all the rights of workers.

My essential purpose in bringing forward these proposals is to protect people who are vulnerable and not in a dominant position. The Minister has spent a lot of time consulting on these matters. It seems the Attorney General's office has been extremely busy, which is a good thing. I reiterate that this Bill is aimed at dealing with healthy and profitable companies that seek to walk away from their liabilities, responsibilities and obligations. We have heard a litany of reasons from the Minister and Minister of State as to why the Bill should be rejected, most of them from the employers' perspective and with little recognition of the situation of employees.

As I said, I would accept any reasonable amendment, including that suggested by Deputy Brady. There was reference to the situation in the UK. It is important to note that when it comes to workers' rights, that country is not as advanced as we are in some respects. Workers in this country have secured many rights since we joined the EU in the 1970s. I salute all of the workers involved in that fight down through the years. I recall that council employees like my late father had to cycle 10 or 12 miles a day in the course of their work. The first break they won in the 1970s was to reduce that requirement to 5 miles. If there was a need to travel more than 5 miles, they could get a lorry with a cover on it. They were simple rights but, like all rights, they were hard won. That is why we should never look to trample workers' rights but instead make sure to protect them.

A pension is a very hard-won right. In some cases, it is earned by people working in difficult, hazardous and demanding jobs, both mentally and physically. When they reach the end of the line in terms of their working life, they should at least be able to enjoy their retirement years with some degree of comfort. Instead, some of them are having to see the dividends of their work being enjoyed by company shareholders. Then, to add insult to injury, the workers are left carrying the can when their employer winds up a solvent scheme or fails to make the appropriate contributions to ensure it remains solvent. What I am seeking with these proposals is to effect a recalibration of rights, obligations and responsibilities. I will be happy to accept amendments from any of my colleagues in the Opposition who wish to bring them forward. I know that any such proposals will be reasoned. I have seen Deputy Brady's Bill and have no problem with its provisions. I am proposing that we work together to ensure that we end up with legislation that is focused on the protection of workers. When one looks at what was proposed by Independent News and Media, for instance, the net effect was simply to enable shareholders to profit while employees were to have their pension entitlements reduced. Fortunately, a resolution was reached in that case and I salute all involved for achieving it. People such as Séamus Dooley and others in the National Union of Journalists, NUJ, who have represented their members well, were extremely concerned at the time about that development. We should commend everybody involved in those negotiations.

I accept the Minister of State, Deputy Kyne, is standing in for the Minister. Deputy Brady is correct that we are worn out. Our eyes are out on sticks. I wish to highlight the dilatory and tardy way in which the Minister addressed these proposals. I introduced the Bill in October 2017, two years and two months ago. I accept that this is a complex area and that issues might arise. I am not so dumb in terms of appreciating the difficulties, but two years and two months is taking the biscuit. There has been no urgency at all. Instead, we have had a lethargic, apathetic response from the Government. All of us here on this side of the House want this issue addressed once and for all. For that reason, I will press on with this, with the support of Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin and perhaps other Members. Let us get the Bill to Committee Stage.

It is time to cut out the nonsense because the longer these provisions are delayed, the greater the incentive for more companies to avail of the opportunity that exists. There is a big hill close to where I lived called Laragh Hill. I think there is a place called Laragh in Deputy Brady's county as well. The saying at home is that something is as wide as Laragh Hill. In other words, one would get two buses across it. There is an opportunity for certain employers to drive a coach and four through the rights for which workers have fought. We cannot allow that. Other Members will be able to do something about this, but it is probably my last opportunity to present a Bill in the House and I am delighted to have it. This is a fundamentally important issue concerning the protection of workers' rights. If progress is not made on the issue, many Members will be back here looking to address it. As an experienced politician who has met a lot of people in his time, I know that Deputy Durkan will have to look at the issue again in this Chamber. However, there is no need for anyone to come back to address it. We have the chance to resolve it by way of the two or three Bills that have been brought before the House. Let us do it now.

See this speech in context