Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister's response is interesting. While she spoke a great deal about debt and insolvency, I remind her that the wording of the amendment under discussion pertains to a solvent firm not being permitted "to close a defined benefit pension scheme except where the scheme has reached a minimum 90 per cent funding standard". In other words, this amendment pertains to solvent companies. I appreciate the Minister's remarks on the collapse in the pensions industry from 2008 but it has recovered. I do not suggest it has recovered to the position it had reached in 2008 or 2009 but it certainly has recovered significantly from the depths and lows reached in 2009 and 2010. As for the current controversy surrounding the ESB pension dispute, I have read a variety of different pension experts state the return on the bonds in which the ESB has invested is high, that is, they have been as high as 17% or 18% over the past two years. Moreover, they stated there was no indication that this would reduce significantly and that the ESB pension fund actually is solvent and is able to meet its obligations. This is what is under discussion, namely, a company that has entered into a promise with its employees from the outset that it would provide for a defined benefit pension at the end of their term of employment. All the amendment seeks is that it would not be allowed to close without at least 90% of it; not that it would go into debt in any way. I reiterate, that as a solvent company such a scheme would not be allowed to close unless it was prepared to pay up to 90% of the minimum pension that is required. That is the argument I am putting forward. I am not necessarily talking about companies going further into debt but about solvent companies that have a capacity to pay in this context.