Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 22, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"30.—The Principal Act is amended in section 10 by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph (a):

(aa) to carry out periodic reviews in order to ensure that there is a fair consumer-provider balance in the regulation and control of the pensions industry.".

I apologise for boring the Minister but I want to conclude the debate on amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, which began on Committee Stage as amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive.

Senator Jim Walsh intervened in the debate on Committee Stage. He may have come to the House late because I do not believe he heard exactly what I said earlier in respect of the amendments. I stated that I was concerned about the extent of the tax relief the Government is giving in terms of occupational pensions scheme contributions. I inquired whether it is obtaining value for money from this tax relief provision that has been extended to the pensions industry. I am not advocating that reliefs to this industry should be withdrawn, I merely wish to ensure that the Government and taxpayers are getting value for money from them. I made the point that if the tax relief were withdrawn, it could be spent elsewhere and perhaps used to increase the non-contributory old age pension and extend it to others. We are giving generous tax reliefs to the pensions industry and we should receive value for money in respect of them. Will the Minister ensure that value for money is obtained when tax reliefs are extended to this sector and others?

The Minister is now extending the funding period by seven years, from three to ten years, to companies which find themselves with schemes that are underfunded. I cannot see how he will alleviate the difficulties experienced by companies with these underfunded schemes. We were told as far back as 1996 that schemes were underfunded and in difficulty. By extending this funding period to ten years, we will not be in a better situation in seven years' time. This is facilitating the pensions industry and we are not demanding anything in return. The Minister said that if he obliged the companies to have their pension schemes fully funded in three years, then many companies could go to the wall. What about the pensioner who is not getting his paid-up pension? By giving this seven year extension to companies, we will be in an even worse situation in seven or ten years' time.

I accept that companies are in difficulty, but they are not doing everything they can to ensure that pensions are preserved. While the pensions industry is doing everything it can to ensure that the industry will not be out of pocket, pensioners will be out of pocket and this funding period will do nothing to help the problem. Instead, it is putting off that day when the industry will have to face up to its responsibilities, yet its schemes will still be underfunded.

I ask the Minister to accept these amendments. We should ensure that the consumer is protected. I have suggested simple measures that could be put in place to provide some protection for the pensioner and that will help to ensure that the pensions industry is not always seeking extensions that are changing their funding schemes from defined benefit to defined contribution.

It is time the Minister stood up to the pensions industry. It is time he ensured that the trustees looked after the money with which they are entrusted on behalf of their employees. The Minister has been given one hour to reconsider my amendments. I hope he sees the value in them and accepts them.