Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

63. To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he intends to support measures to grant greater rights of representation for retired workers groups and specifically proposed measures to give them access to the Workplace Relations Commission and rights to consultation prior to any changes to their pension entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [62118/22]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is now a year and a half since our Bill on provisions in respect of pension entitlements for retired workers passed Second Stage in the Dáil. The Bill states that retired workers cannot be ignored and have their pension pots raided without consultation.

It passed Second Stage, but the Government put a 12-month stay on its progress in order to have a consultation period. We are now 18 months down the line and the Government has proposed nothing, brought forward no alternative, nor signalled whether it will support the substantive aim behind the Bill. My question is to find out if it is going to.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, which I have discussed on a few occasions with his colleague, Deputy Bríd Smith. As Deputy Paul Murphy is aware, we have difficulties with the Bill. We put that on the record on the first night in the convention centre when we discussed it. During the Second Stage debate on the Industrial Relations (Provisions in Respect of Pension Entitlements of Retired Workers) Bill, I outlined the Department's difficulties and concerns with the Bill, as drafted, and why it could not be supported by the Government.

If a person is in receipt of an occupational pension, his or her relationship is with the trustees of the pension fund. The person no longer has an employment relationship with his or her former employer. As the Deputy will be aware, trustees have statutory and fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of all members of a fund. It is the responsibility of the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman to act as an independent and impartial means of resolving complaints alleging financial loss occasioned by an act of maladministration and disputes of fact or law in respect of occupational pension schemes and personal retirement savings accounts.

It is important to note that access to the industrial relations machinery of the State, which is what the Bill seeks, including access to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, is governed by section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. This legislation provides that a worker means any person aged 15 years or over who has entered or works under a contract with an employer. A person in receipt of an occupational pension is not a worker and therefore cannot have a complaint dealt with by the Workplace Relations Commission. In March of this year, my Department launched a public consultation on the issue of retired workers' access to industrial relations and the submissions received are available to work through.

The reason for the long delay is that 18 months ago I committed to Deputy Bríd Smith, as the sponsor of the Bill, that while I did not think the proposed legislation could address the issue or that it was the right place to do it, we had simply tried to find a solution to give greater access. I met some of the groups involved in devising the legislation with the Deputy and committed to doing a public consultation to see if we could find a way to do this. We are not convinced that the Bill is the answer. I have been honest about that from day one. I am still not convinced. The public consultation is in place, and there have been submissions. It is open to Deputy Paul Murphy to work through them and to see if he wants to make changes to the legislation before he brings it to Committee Stage or to see if we could bring forward other solutions. For our part, we have consulted with other Departments to get their views on the submissions in order to see if we can assist in some way.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There have been campaigns for years by groups that represent more than 500,000 retired workers. It is 18 months since the Bill passed Second Stage in the House, but the Minister of State is just saying that we will have a consultation. Does he accept it is a problem that six months after a person who has paid into an occupational pension scheme for all his or her working life retires, that person has no say in any proposed changes, has no access to an effective mechanism to air issues or seek redress and that, in effect, his or her pension can be raided? It can be negotiated away, and the retired person has no input whatsoever. The person has no right to be consulted before any of those changes are made. One's income can be slashed. Does the Minister of State accept there is a problem in this regard that needs to be addressed? If he does not think our Bill is the way to do it, what is he going to do? Having a consultation is just kicking the can down the road at this point. If he had said this 18 months ago, that would be fine. A year and a half has passed, however, and it is not even clear if the Minister of State accepts that there is a fundamental issue.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Deputy did not listen to my answer-----

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I definitely did listen.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----or maybe it was the case that he came in with preprepared ideas in the context of what he was going to say. I very clearly said that following on from the commitment given to his colleague on the floor of the convention centre, we would explore the issue to see if we could help. We fundamentally disagree with the Bill because it would change the relationship of industrial relations discussions and negotiations and bring in a third party that is not still working for an employer. We disagree on that, and it will not change because, to be honest, I cannot see how we could facilitate it. I informed the Deputy's colleague that I would engage with her. On foot of the Bill and the arguments she made in respect of it, we met some of the groups involved and we said we would have a public consultation. That is now over, and the submissions have come in. They are available to Deputy Paul Murphy and to anybody else to look at and to tease through.

We have engaged with other Departments, which are also looking at those submissions to see if any change could be made to strengthen the position of retirees and pensioners. It might not be for my Department to take the lead because it does not fall to us to do this. While I understand what is required to be addressed, we might not be able to solve it within the Department and we might have to work with other Departments as well. In the context of any changes to pension benefits payable from a scheme, the trustees of that scheme are required to notify members, beneficiaries and authorised trade unions. Changes made to the occupational pension scheme regulations 2015 require trustees to also notify groups representing the interests of pensioners and deferred scheme members of these situations. That gives them the opportunity to have their say at that stage but I understand from the groups that they do not feel that is enough. I am sorry, but this is a complicated matter.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I heard exactly what the Minister of State said earlier. He just repeated it. The essence of it is that the Department is going to explore the matter to see if we can help. That is great. Some 18 months after this was brought very firmly to his attention, the Minister of State has indicated that the Department must see if there is anything it can do. The Minister of State indicated that the consultation process has taken place. Does he accept that there is a fundamental problem here, and that it is fundamentally unjust that workers have had their pension schemes raided, both by the Government and by private sector employers and that deals done have had profound impacts on retired workers at a vulnerable stage of their lives, on which they had no prior consultation and no ability to impact? Does he accept that that is a fundamental problem?

The Minister of State makes the point that, as the law stands, retired workers cannot go to the WRC, but we get to make the law in this place. It is not a defence to use the phrase "as the law stands". That is precisely the point of amending the law, to say that retired workers should have access. Pensions are deferred wages and retired workers should have access to the industrial relations machinery in terms of being able to go to the WRC. It does not affect other industrial relations machinery; it simply says that they should have a voice in any proposed change that impacts on them.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just in case there is any doubt, it is Deputy Paul Murphy's legislation: I am not stopping him bringing it back through the committee and following the usual channels.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is coming.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody is blocking the Deputy from doing so. He is totally free to argue his case and bring the Bill through the system. What the Government is stating is that it does not agree with the Bill. We think it is a flawed Bill that will not solve the problem the Deputy wants to solve. It will also complicate the industrial relations machinery we have that operates extremely well because it brings in people who have left the workforce to have a say on existing situations within the workforce. We do not believe that will help.

In regard to the law, the role of the pensions ombudsman already exists in Part XII of the Pensions Act to act as an independent and impartial means of resolving complaints alleging financial loss occasioned by an act of maladministration and disputes of fact or law in respect of occupational pension schemes and personal retirement saving schemes. There is legislation in place. We are not the line Department in respect of that legislation. When I met the groups, I understood that their particular concern is that they feel they are left out and not consulted at various stages. My interpretation of the law is that they are consulted, but they feel they cannot put an agenda on it; they are consulted but they are not listened to. It may be possible to strengthen the legislation but Deputy Paul Murphy's Bill is not the answer. I do not think he wants to hear that, but if he believes it is the answer, I am not stopping him from pushing it.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want the Minister of State to have an answer. The problem is he does not even intend to have an answer.