David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment because it is not only solvent companies but also profitable companies that can use the current provisions to walk away from their obligations to pensioners. People are at a vulnerable time in their lives when they reach pension age. It is the one thing on which they always think they can rely. A classic example of the difficulties we are facing is the case of Waterford Wedgwood. The Waterford Crystal staff had a difficult time whereas the Wedgwood staff were looked after well because their company was based in the UK, even though it had merged with Waterford Crystal.

I have raised the question of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, which employees were obliged to join when they reached the age of 20 if they were recruited before that age, on behalf of a number of those employees. I have correspondence from one individual which states, "Following actuarial reviews, the percentage contributions paid into this scheme increased seven times during my 45 years of contributing commencing at a combined employer-employee contribution of 10.25% in the early 1960s and rising over time to 18.75% of basic salary." That should have resulted in a pension of €45,000 per annum when this man retired but he received a pension of €30,000, which is sustainable but it is not enormous when one considers the salaries of people in certain sectors of society and the top-ups and so on.

The reason there is a difficulty in this regard is also interesting because over the years considerable reserves were built up in the IASS fund but they were diverted for different purposes such as funding financial incentives for early retirement, voluntary severance programmes and so on and this was combined with sponsoring employees accounting for the defined benefit scheme as a defined contribution scheme following the banking and financial crises in 2008. There was also the effect of financial markets and the banking crisis since 2008, the policies of central banks in Europe, minor changes to longevity tables and the use of annuity factor rates rather than corporate bond rates and so on, as they do in the UK to value pension liability. All this has had a negative effect on this fund. As late as 2008, the fund was in surplus but now it is not. This has been driven by these financial events.

I hope to be present to support amendment No. 3 tabled by Senator Barrett because this gets into the nitty-gritty of these issues and specifies provisions that are vague in the Government's Bill. I support the amendment.