David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

She continued by saying that everything was okay when the defined benefit schemes were in surplus. This is true and nobody could possibly deny it. In the case of a single insolvency, it seems extraordinary that a company can continue to trade and make a profit but welsh on its responsibility to employees and pensioners. Will the Minister address that by way of amendment?

As I am on the subject of amendments, the Minister will no doubt be charmed, amused and entertained to know that we had a discussion on the Order of Business today as to whether we would be allowed have amendments at all on the Bill, as two days notice were not given. I do not know where that came from but I am delighted to see the Minister introducing amendments. We had a good discussion on the Order of Business and it has been decided that we will have amendments, which is appropriate. We must be very careful and examine how business is conducted in this House. There should never be a case where for technical reasons within the Bills Office, amendments are not allowed, as this House has a principal function of providing such amendments.

I noticed certain gaps in the Minister's performance of her written script, unlike some other Members, who read extensively from provided scripts or scripts they had made. I am not arguing about it and such practice is fair enough. I am only pointing this out in self-defence, as they may appear more grammatically correct than I do. The Minister left out a sentence in her script stating "Technical advice was undertaken on the provisions and a consultation with all the stakeholder groups took place." That seems to be contradicted by a briefing from the Ireland Senior Citizens Parliament, which seeks the right of audience for pensioners and indicates that this is not being dealt with by the Bill. They are being deprived of a right of audience. It has made the point that employers have always asserted pension payments and the sponsorship of pension schemes to the benefit of an employee as a valid and compulsory part of remuneration. Until the 1970s, pensioners had a right of audience to the industrial relations machinery of the State. A successful pensioner case was then reversed by the then Minister for Labour in the 1970s. In dealing with the matter of pensions, which is sensitive and a matter of fairness, all stakeholders should be included. My understanding is that not all stakeholders were included in the process, although I am not accusing the Minister of being involved. I am sure it was a Freudian slip when she left out that line from the speech.

The Minister has also indicated that the majority of pensioners received a State pension. I should receive part of a State pension but I did not think it right to take it as I thought others needed it more. The net result was newspapers in this country printing stories indicating I defrauded the Trinity pension scheme. They also argued that I am a tax cheat. The College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin did not bother its fanny to come near me and put out a statement of fact, although I asked it to. It need not think it is getting a shilling in my will.