Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Why are the actuaries pleading as a factor to the Minister that they did not think people would live that long when it is hardly fresh news in society that that has been happening? It was well known that the people who retired in 1960, 53 yeas ago, would live longer.

We have a tradition of poor investment returns by insurance companies, banks, accountants and so on. Why is that always the role of the taxpayers or somebody else? I would have thought a good penalty for poor investment returns should be visited on the people who made the investments.

On the failure to increase the retirement age, that was a solution that has been mentioned many times, including in this House. With the support of every Member, the House agreed to Senator White's motion against compulsory retirement. One of the troika recommendations is to increase the retirement age but knowing that people were living longer and doing nothing about the retirement age while saying it is somebody else's fault, putting a levy on other insurance companies, asking to be bailed out again and giving other reasons for the inability of the resources of the scheme to discharge its liabilities, is wrong.

They would indicate there is a risk for the Minister that she would be bailing out incompetence. They should bear some of the liability if they have not performed up to the efficiency standard one would normally expect under the various headings.

I refer to amendment No. 4. In respect of an application under subsection (4), I want to add in the factors I have just considered. When the Minister gets an application, she should be able to see how much of it was caused by bad luck or events which were not foreseeable and how much was caused by the incompetent running of the fund. She should have a say on that.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to bring in the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform with the power to approve, which is in the Bill, but also to amend. Both Ministers come to the House quite frequently and I do not think they have ever been mistaken for a rubber-stamp. They may have thoughts they might wish to exchange on whether they should approve it. They might increase it but amendment No. 5 seeks to give them the power to amend. After all, if they are going to pay the bill, they should have some thoughts on it.

It should state the Minister for Finance shall, in consultation with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, approve or amend the request made under subsection (5). We are trying to get them to engage in dialogue with the Minister as to whether they should approve it or whether they have any thoughts on it.

The last amendment seeks to provide that 12 months after the passing of the Social and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 and on each anniversary of such passing, a report should be prepared on the applications made under subsection (4). I would like the Minister's thoughts on the amended subsection (2). The review should cover the main reasons these claims are being made and how they have impacted on the operation of the Act. The principle of the annual review is extremely good and I wish more Ministers would carry one out but I think the Minister should be allowed to comment on the main reasons these reports are necessary and why pension funds got into trouble.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and express the hope the taxpayer and the persons whose funds are being managed by the pension fund managers would be better protected if the amendments we propose were accepted.