Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 24, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:"(2) Failure of the trustees to notify members of changes as outlined under this section shall be deemed an offence as prescribed under section 3 of the Pensions Act 1990.".

This is a matter on which my colleague Senator O'Brien had wished to contribute, but unfortunately he is not able to be present. On the thrust of the amendment, we believe there is a gap in the legislation in that it provides for certain obligations for the trustees. The Bill, in providing for the amendment of section 50 of the 1990 Act, states that the trustees of the scheme shall "within one month of the date of the notice, notify in writing such persons as may be prescribed of the following".

It goes into some detail. Subsection (5) states:

it substitutes the following paragraph for paragraph (b):"(b) the trustees of the scheme and the employer to whom the scheme relates shall make such notifications and provide such information to such persons as may be prescribed, when and in such manner as the Pensions Authority may specify," and
(ii) in paragraph (c), by inserting "within such period as may be prescribed," after "direction,",

It goes into some considerable detail as to the obligations of the trustees in respect of providing this information. However, we believe that failure to provide this information and failure to subscribe to the section as proposed should carry a sanction. There is no sanction whatsoever. The trustees can blindly ignore this provision and there is no sanction. They can be incompetent or inactive. That is the reason we have proposed that failure of the trustees to notify members of changes as outlined under this section shall be an offence as prescribed under section 3 of the Pensions Act 1990.
The Minister will be aware of growing concern about the power of trustees in companies where they can make changes to pensions without any notification whatsoever to the members. The members find out afterwards or, alternatively, as is happening in the case of Aer Lingus, in a situation where they believe their defined benefits can be changed without any recourse by them to the trustees. They can do it unilaterally.
In the context of this legislation there is, in our opinion, a need for some type of sanction because this area is becoming increasingly fraught with controversy, primarily because there is a shortfall in a whole variety of defined pensions and companies are constantly changing their pension rights and obligations to employees. There was a time when all of this was straightforward. As we look back on that time it seems that was a utopia when there was no controversy about pensions. One paid one's contribution into a pension scheme in a company, the employers paid the pension and one was given it at the end. As I am afraid that scenario no longer applies, there is a real need for some form of sanction. We want to ensure the trustees live up to their obligations and that we do not have the scenario where members are having rows and arguments with the trustees who can then hide behind legislation such as this and, as the Minister said in another context, give them the two fingers.