Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 2014

Vol. 860 No. 2

Social Welfare Bill 2014: Instruction to Committee

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 177, Standing Order 131 is modified to permit an instruction to the Committee to which the Social Welfare Bill 2014 may be recommitted in respect of an amendment, for which it has power to make provision in the Bill in relation to the payment of moneys by the Minister for Finance in respect of liabilities which may arise in relation to certain defined benefit pension schemes and to change the title of the Bill to take account of these provisions.

The amendments I am bringing forward will enable the Minister for Finance to draw moneys from the Central Fund to discharge liabilities which may accrue to the State in the event of the wind-up of a defined benefit pension scheme where both the employer and the scheme were insolvent, known as a double insolvency; where the date of the wind-up of the scheme was on or after 25 January 2007 and before 25 December 2013; and where the resources of the scheme are insufficient to fund a minimum level of benefits.

The issue of a potential liability on the State arises following the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the UK case of Carol Marilyn Robins and others v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, known as the Robins case, which was delivered on 25 January 2007, and in the Irish case of Hogan and others v. the Minister for Social Protection and others, known as the Hogan case, which was delivered on 25 April 2013.

Both of these cases were concerned with the transposition of Article 8 of EU Directive 2008/94, the insolvency directive. The original insolvency directive 80/987/EEC was transposed by Ireland via the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984. The consolidated directive 2008/94 did not amend Article 8 of the earlier Directive 80/987/EEC.

The insolvency directive requires members states to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and also the interests of persons having already left the employment of the employer, at the date of the employer's insolvency. This protection is in respect of rights conferring on them immediately or prospective entitlement under supplementary or occupational pension schemes. In a ruling on the Robins case on 25 January 2007, the European Court of Justice found that where the measures in place to protect the interests of scheme members fail to secure at least 49% of the member's entitlement then this level of protection was not sufficient to secure compliance with the directive.

In 2010, a case was brought on behalf of ten members of the Waterford Crystal staff and factory pension schemes against the Minister for Social Protection, the Attorney General and Ireland for the alleged failure by the State to properly transpose the insolvency directive and for consequent financial losses suffered. In 2011, the High Court referred certain matters to the European Court of Justice seeking clarification on provisions in the directive.

The European Court of Justice delivered its ruling in the Hogan case on 25 April 2012 and reaffirmed that where the measures in place to protect the interests of scheme members fail to secure at least 49% of the member's entitlement then this level of protection was not sufficient to secure compliance with the directive.

Deputies may recall that I amended the Pensions Act last year to change the manner in which the resources of a defined benefit pension scheme are distributed in the event of the wind up of a pension scheme where both the employer and the scheme is insolvent. The purpose of this was to ensure that all beneficiaries of the scheme - this includes pensioners, current employees and former employees who have not yet retired - receive at least 50% of their benefits and protect pension benefits in payment up to €12,000 per annum.

The amendment at that time provided that where the resources of a defined benefit pension scheme are not sufficient resources to meet that level of liabilities then the State will provide funding from the Exchequer to address this shortfall in the resources of the scheme. In budget 2014 and in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2013 the Minister for Finance provided for changes to the pensions levy to provide funding to meet potential State liabilities emerging from pre-existing or future pension fund difficulties. The legislation in the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 is not retrospective and applies to double insolvencies arising after the date of the enactment of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 on 25 December 2013.

The amendment I am now bringing forward allows for payment from the Central Fund to be made by the Minister for Finance in situations where the State may need to address any liabilities that could arise between the date of the Robins judgment which was delivered on 25 January 2009 and the date of the enactment of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 - 25 December 2013.

The aim of the changes I introduced last year and the package of measures supporting those changes was to ensure as far as possible that the benefits of scheme members will be more secure; poorly funded schemes will become more sustainable and in the medium and long term achieve a fully funded position; and, the exposure of the State in the case of the wind up of a scheme where the employer is insolvent is minimised.

It is considered that the amendments which I made to the Pensions Act last year secures Ireland's compliance with the insolvency directive. One of the key mechanisms for securing the solvency of a pension scheme is the funding standard requirement as set out in Part IV of the Pensions Act. This is a "wind-up" standard: it looks at the benefits that a scheme is obliged to provide should the scheme be wound up and defines the minimum assets that the scheme must hold in order to cover those liabilities. The funding standard was in abeyance since the end of 2008 until I reintroduced it in June 2012. The reintroduction of the funding standard has provided a clearer indication of the funding position of pension schemes. The reintroduction of the funding standard has provided an environment where the Pensions Authority can fully engage with schemes and, in particular, with poorly funded schemes to advise and support schemes achieve a more sustainable funding position.

In advance of the reintroduction of the funding standard, I introduced legislation to require pension schemes to maintain additional funding in the form of a risk reserve to protect scheme members against future volatility in financial markets. It is the objective in the short term to support weaker schemes to achieve a more sustainable funding position, and in the medium term support all schemes to meet the requirements of the funding standard. Ultimately, pension schemes need to get to a place where they have provided for additional funding in the form of a risk reserve in order to protect the interest of scheme members against future volatility in financial markets. The application of the funding standard which the OECD report, Review of the Irish Pension System, which was published in April 2013, considered "undemanding" is key to achieving this level of scheme funding. Some 96% approximately of defined benefit pension schemes either satisfy the requirement of the funding standard, or have agreed, or are in the process of agreeing a funding proposal with the Pensions Authority. The remaining schemes are in dialogue with the Pensions Authority.

The number of defined benefits pension schemes in Ireland has reduced from 2,500 schemes in 1991 to 1,500 in 2003 and to 933 schemes with some 189,644 active scheme members at the end of 2013. The vast majority of defined benefit pension schemes are now closed to new members. However, while this change is in line with international trends it does not lessen the resolve of the Government to ensure that the funding levels in defined benefit schemes are sustainable, that measures are in place to secure compliance with the insolvency directive and that the system operates in a manner consistent with the public interest in ensuring the future sustainability of a system of private pension provision in Ireland.

Deputies will be aware that a number of changes have been made to the Pensions Act in recent years. The rationale behind these changes was to ensure that appropriate measures were put in place to balance the interests of all parties and ensure the sustainability of the defined benefit pension model. These measures included the reduction in the cost of providing pension benefits through the establishment of the pensions insolvency payments scheme and the introduction of sovereign annuities-bonds, the requirement to maintain a risk reserve in order to protect the interest of scheme members against future volatility in financial markets, and broadening the options available to employers and the trustees of defined benefit pension schemes to restructure scheme benefit in order to ensure the sustainability of the scheme. All these measures have been underpinned by a range of measures introduced by the Pensions Authority to ensure that schemes comply with the pension scheme funding requirements as set out in the Pensions Act.

I acknowledge that many schemes are making great efforts to ensure their ongoing viability and employers and members have often made significant financial contributions over and above those required by their particular trust rules.

This process is generally managed through dialogue between trustees, employers and members, where efforts are made to reach agreement regarding the steps that must be taken to secure scheme viability. This may include a mix of measures, such as increased employer and member contributions, longer working and amended benefits. I am pleased to inform the committee that I have not received any application for funding to meet a shortfall in resources in a defined benefit pension scheme arising in the case of a double insolvency as provided for in the 2013 Act. In the event, however, that a scheme does become insolvent, the measures introduced have been designed to strike a fair balance between the interests of all members of the schemes. The 2013 (No. 2) Act, for example, ensures that 100% of defined benefit pensions in payment will be protected up to €12,000. Based on research in 2007 by the Society of Actuaries in Ireland showing that the average defined benefit pension being paid directly from scheme funds was €10,718 per annum, this measure ensures substantial protection for the majority of persons.

I am hopeful the structures now in place will eliminate any recourse on the State to support schemes that wind up in a double insolvency situation. I expect that any liabilities that might exist prior to the 2013 Act will be resolved in the short term.

As I understand it, the Tánaiste is taking the provisions introduced in the 2010 Act and making them retrospective to 2007, the date of the Robins case. Is that the correct interpretation?

I did not hear all that the Deputy said.

The Tánaiste can reply at the end of the debate.

I will reply at the end.

I am just asking the Tánaiste whether the effect of the amendment is to make the provisions set out in the 2010 Act for double insolvency retrospective to the date of the Robins case in 2007.

Not really. I will reply at the end of the debate. I think I know what Deputy O'Dea is trying to get at but I do not think the answer to his question is "Yes".

Perhaps the Tánaiste can tell us why the amendment or change did not appear in the original legislation and has only appeared on Committee Stage. It seems to be an important amendment.

This is an amendment to private pension provision. I tabled a number of amendments on Committee Stage in regard to private pension provision, such as one to provide for an appeal against the decision of trustees and that no defined benefit pension scheme can close unless it is 90% funded. These amendments were ruled out of order as being irrelevant to the legislation. It seems beyond comprehension that this amendment can be relevant to the Social Welfare Bill and how those amendments are not, which were ruled out again today. The Tánaiste will say she does not make these decisions. Is it not peculiar that when we propose amendments to enable us to discuss the deferred pensioners of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, they are ruled out of order on the basis of being irrelevant, while something that changes private pension provision is ruled in because the Tánaiste wants to get it through today?

The Minister referred to the Robins case and Article 8. The decision was that if the provision is not at least 49%, it contravenes the relevant European directive. This legislation provides for 50%, which is the bare minimum. The Tánaiste mentioned a number of minor aspects relating to defined benefit pension schemes and concedes that the number of defined benefit schemes has diminished dramatically from 2,500 some years ago to 933 at the latest count. Has the Tánaiste considered substantial changes to the defined benefit pension scheme? All existing schemes are closed to new members. The demography of the country ensures that in 20 or 25 years we will not be able to maintain the State pension system at its present value in relation to the value of money. We should be doing everything possible to encourage people to provide for themselves. One way in which they could do so with a certain level of security is through defined benefit pension schemes, if we can resurrect them and reverse the trend. The Tánaiste will be aware that one of the major problems with defined benefit pension schemes is the method by which liabilities are calculated. It is artificial and gives a distorted view of the actual liabilities of the defined benefit pension scheme. Does the Tánaiste have proposals in that regard?

Deputy Willie O'Dea mentioned the process of tabling amendments. Last week we were dealing with the Social Welfare Bill whereas this week we are potentially dealing with a social welfare and pensions Bill. This is not the way to do business. While I am not saying we should not deal with the amendments, if we had been aware of substantial changes to the nature of the Bill, we would have put more time into preparing amendments on the issue of pensions. While we introduced some amendments on Committee Stage, most of them were ruled out on the basis of putting a charge on the Exchequer or on the people. The same will happen later today. In many ways, the amendment comes out of the blue and, by its nature, changes the Social Welfare Bill to make it a social welfare and pensions Bill.

It is consequential on the 2013 Act, which introduced a provision to guarantee a portion of the pension entitlements in the case of double insolvency, when the pension scheme and the company have been declared insolvent. The Act guarantees 50% of pension benefits and, in the case of pensions in payment, 100% of the first €12,000. In the case of double insolvency arising after the passage of the 2013 Bill, the State is on the hook for the difference between what the scheme covers and the level of payment guaranteed. We had a long debate at the time, although not as long as we should have had, about the priority and order. I will not rehash that debate.

The Department and the Tánaiste were not ready to propose this amendment on Committee Stage, which is the more appropriate time to deal with the amendment and tease out some of its peculiarities. When there is a major change to legislation, we receive an explanatory memorandum that explains the consequences. Seeking leave to introduce this amendment was done with one line at the committee. We did not have the text or a proper explanation.

However, it was at this late stage when my office got to grips with it. An explanatory memorandum of some sort should have been provided not just to social welfare spokespersons but to every Deputy. This has the potential to impose a substantial charge on the Exchequer. Accordingly, every Member should have been entitled to some prior information on the effects of these amendments.

When the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 was debated and we dealt with the priority order, questions were asked about the retrospective application of the legislation to the Waterford Crystal pensioners. I was informed then that a priority order could not be retrospectively applied to companies that were already insolvent. Today, we are introducing legislation which seems to address this very issue.

I hope the Minister does not mind my pointing out problems with her amendment. It states that the proposed new section 4 refers to section 10 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2013. Section 10 of that Act has nothing to do with pensions. It should read section 10 of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013. This is a simple mistake but I hope the Minister has the time to check it and rectify it before we look silly. However, that is the nature of rushed legislation.

Why, in view of the delay in acting on this matter before, is there now a rush? In the debate on this legislation in 2013, I argued for the need for retrospective provisions. However, the relevant provisions of that Act have not been used at all since it was passed. At the time, I argued the relevant double insolvency that was being protected against in the future was that of Waterford Crystal. That predated the Act, as the company had become insolvent since 2009 and would be covered by the legislation. The Robins judgment in Britain, which found that the State had an obligation to protect a portion of workers’ pension entitlements where their employer had become insolvent, had been made in 2007. At that stage, we were also aware that the Waterford Wedgwood workers in Britain had received 90% of their pension entitlements, but nothing like that was offered in this State.

Opposition Members do not have any figures before them, yet the Minister is asking us, as well as her backbenchers, to allow the State to write a blank cheque. How much in hock will we be to subsidise the State’s portion of the Waterford Crystal workers’ pension scheme? Will it be €100 million or €200 million? We deserve to have some kind of estimate. I understand there is an ongoing process with the Waterford Crystal workers which could be choreographed to resolve issues through mediation rather than going back to court. This is to be welcomed. These workers ended up with nothing in their pension entitlements and, regrettably, some of them have died since. That is the scandal of this system. This and the former Government did not act quickly enough when the European Court of Justice judged that the State had a liability to protect pensions in such circumstances. How many other similar cases are there? We know of Waterford Crystal because that was one of the large companies that folded at the time. The Department’s officials advised there are not many, but exactly how many other cases could potentially arise? It covers a long time, from 2007 to 2013. Could liabilities emerge if other workers in similar circumstances want to get their entitlements? Could this add substantially to the cost of this proposal? In the case of Waterford Crystal, it affected 1,300 members of the pension scheme, which had a deficit of over €100 million.

In his 2014 Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance stated that the pension levy would pay for the cost of the guarantee. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton - maybe even the Minister herself - repeated this. The pension levy has been used to promise the earth, moon and stars, but it is unlike the bank levy, which is ring-fenced for a particular fund. The pension levy is supposed to pay for the jobs initiative and close the Exchequer deficit. How will the Minister guarantee that the pension levy will pay over €100 million for Waterford Crystal and other double insolvency defined benefit schemes in the future if it is not ring-fenced?

The pension levy is paid by those with defined contribution pensions, but this State guarantee is extended only to those with defined benefit pensions where the employer is insolvent. The reality is that the cost of this guarantee will come from general taxation. The Minister must make clear to Members what the implications will be for the State’s finances.

It was made crystal clear by the Robins judgment in 2007 that action was required to protect pensions. For four years, the previous Government failed to act on this. With the 2013 Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act, the Minister dealt with future liabilities from double insolvencies but did not address the Waterford Crystal issue.

This legislation barely scratches the surface of the pension crisis. We will be back to this again, regrettably, to ensure that inadequately protected pension schemes get better protection. Many schemes are in difficulties. On Report Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, we will try, given the restrictions on tabling amendments, to address the likes of the Irish aviation superannuation scheme. Changes to pension provisions were rushed outside the House to force workers and pensioners to accept a change to that scheme. The Abbey Theatre pension scheme is another one which did not get a full hearing as to why it was changed.

Changes were made a number of years ago to companies that were in difficulties with defined benefit pension schemes. The view was that they would not be in difficulties if things improved in the future but some employers took the opportunity presented by the downturn and the underfunding of these schemes to chance their arms and force defined contribution schemes on workers and deferred members. This group of people is not often mentioned in the debate because those involved do not have as many rights as active members or pensioners. Pensioners receive a pension and need greater protection and this is reflected in the priority order introduced by the Minister. My input on this issue has been with a view to guaranteeing a fair distribution in all circumstances to all contributors to pension schemes.

I am not opposing the introduction of this; I merely think this approach is strange as it comes many years after the European courts made the State aware that it has a liability in this area. We will address this further on Report Stage.

The next speakers are from the Technical Group and Deputy Joan Collins will share time with Deputy Boyd Barrett. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Like the previous speaker, I do not oppose the Minister's amendment but I think more debate is required. Some offices are fortunate to have the staff and support to tease out these issues but some of us do not have this support so it is difficult to grasp how changes can impact on people's lives. This discussion is on the legitimate expectations men and women have regarding pensions that were paid for over a long period. These people have discovered that problems with legislation mean they are not protected when a pension scheme collapses and in such circumstances they end up out of kilter and without the income they had expected. This matter arises due to decisions of the European courts and challenges in the UK and other countries. Workers have a legitimate right to be protected from pension fund crises and more debate is required on this.

Many of the amendments that were tabled have been ruled out of order, as usual, but it is good to see the amendments we tabled on the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, and those on pensions remain to be debated. This has happened only because the Minister has decided to make a particular change to pensions relating to double insolvency. I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters in a more detailed way.

The amendments tabled seek the introduction of a six-month check on how the rent supplement impacts on people's lives. I wish to put on the record of the House the details of an e-mail I received from people in an apartment block in Crumlin. The developer went into receivership and the apartments were in NAMA but were taken over by a vulture capital company. Tenants received notice that rent was to increase from €1,300 per month to €1,600 within 28 days and this will have a big impact on whether they can afford to pay the rent. It is outrageous that this is allowed to happen. Landlords are allowed to increase rent once a year, irrespective of inflation, wage levels or anything else. Rack-renting landlords wish to make quick profits and I think the points made earlier by Deputy Boyd Barrett to the Minister for Finance are apt. A rent cap should be introduced and if landlords have difficulty maintaining such a cap they should be dealt with individually and make their cases to the relevant person. At the moment people must find themselves almost homeless before their individual cases for rent supplement are considered. The Government should take the approach I mentioned rather than oblige ordinary people who find themselves homeless to seek an increase in rent supplement. Sometimes these increases are not given because they are considered individually. There should be rent controls and if landlords find them difficult they should talk to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, for support. It could be the case that landlords cannot pay their mortgages.

I wish to mention another matter that was ruled out of order. We were asked by the Northside Civic Centre to examine the 15% deduction relating to people with historical payment problems. These problems may be the fault of the tenant, the Department's mistakes or something else. People can find themselves below the €186 threshold that is supposed to protect people. People with a property tax rate of €240 cannot have an income of below €186 because it is deemed the minimum necessary to live. Community Law & Mediation asked us to table amendments to return this area to how it was at after the 2005 Act. There should be a six-year cap on the investigation of historical matters relating to this issue and a human rights standard should be applied. It was found that seeking the recovery of an overpayment could be a violation of constitutional rights. We wanted to address these issues through amendments but they were ruled out of order.

The Deputy can raise these points on Report Stage and speak at length. These matters should not be addressed at this point.

Are we not discussing the Bill?

We are addressing the pensions section in particular. The amendments that have been tabled will allow the Deputy to raise the points she wishes on Report Stage. I am conscious of taking the Deputy's speaking time.

I will leave it at that as I made my points on pensions.

I know that some of the things I wish to say are in order and I will find out if the other things are in order when I say them. The substantive issue here is the Minister's amendment. I understand that this amendment will give power to the Minister to authorise payments from the Central Fund to pension schemes that were insolvent but predate the passing of the 2013 legislation. If I am correct, the aim is to address the problems that arose at Waterford Crystal but I did not see a copy of the Minister's speech and I did not hear all of it. If I am correct about this amendment the workers will welcome it. I spoke to some of the workers before coming into the House and I believe negotiations are going on to resolve the terrible situation in which they find themselves.

It is appropriate that this should be discussed in the Dáil today because I was informed of another tragedy this morning. One of the Waterford Crystal workers died this morning. He had 40 years of service at the company but, because this matter dragged on for six years, he will never get his pension entitlement.

Whatever changes are made or whatever deal is concluded in respect of Waterford Crystal will not benefit him. I was informed by the same Waterford Crystal worker that in total 20 Waterford Crystal workers have died since the closure of the plant in 2009 and, equally, none of them will benefit. Their widows are distraught after the deaths of their partners and so on. Whatever comes out, they will not benefit from it.

What they got on the basis of what was left in the scheme was in the region of between 18% and 28% of what they were entitled to, far short of what they should have got. These people worked for years, contributed to the scheme and had an expectation of their pension entitlement at the end of it. However, for six years now they have got only a fraction of it and some will have got nothing because they have passed away since. That is a rather tragic and awful situation for workers who worked hard all their lives with a legitimate expectation of a decent pension at the end of it.

As I understand it, this amendment tries to deal with this situation retrospectively. It relates to the primary legislation and involves what the worker I was talking to this morning described as the miserable and cynical figure of 50%. That is the limit in terms of what can be paid out. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the matter in her response because the legislation passed at the end of 2013 referred to a figure of 50%. This legislation refers to the same figure and, therefore, I assume in so far as the Minister is attempting to deal with situations that predate the legislation, the 50% figure still holds. The Waterford Crystal worker put it to me that this was cynical given the Robins case ruling, in which a 49% payout was deemed inadequate by the European courts in respect of discharging the requirements of the directive. These requirements are not specific but when the courts were asked to rule on the matter they determined that 49% was inadequate. In response, the British Government introduced a figure of 89%. By contrast, we have picked a figure 1% over the 49% which the European courts deemed inadequate. The worker I was talking to today asked why was it that our Government seems to have less respect for the people of Waterford Crystal or for that matter any defined benefit pensioners and why does it deem them worthy of less decent treatment than the treatment of pensioners across the water by their government. That was the point made to me on the telephone by a Waterford Crystal worker this morning. Perhaps the Minister can come back to me on the matter. I am passing it on from the horse's mouth.

Certainly, we must deal with these issues and I am keen for clarity. I accept the bona fides of the person I was talking to who, by the way, is one of the pensioners affected. At the very least this deserves a proper discussion. The appeal he asked me to pass on to the Minister was to the effect that the Waterford Crystal workers should be treated decently in the negotiations which, I understand, are ongoing. As far as the pensioners involved are concerned 50% is not good enough. We should be considering something approximating the British figure of 89% of entitlements in respect of the support the Government should give for insolvent funds.

There is another amendment I wish the Minister had included in the Bill. We will probably get a chance to discuss it later. I am keen to see an emergency measure to deal with the area of rent allowance. This is an emergency. The Minister has brought in late amendments to deal with other matters and I am keen to see similar emergency measures to deal with the crisis of rent allowance, since the associated caps are directly leading to the homelessness crisis.

The proposed Bill is on pensions, not rent allowance.

We are discussing the amendments.

You still have 20 seconds if you wish to pursue a point, but not on that issue.

I will make the point later. I am explaining that I would have preferred to have seen other amendments to deal with the issue of rent allowance, because it is an emergency.

To date, we have not had an emergency response from the Government and we need one urgently.

I wish to reiterate a point for Deputy Collins. Understandably, amendments in respect of pensions are rather technical and complicated. This is because they are based on the law of trusts and the law of trusts is rather complex.

The amendment I am bringing forward today will enable the Minister for Finance to draw down moneys from the Central Fund to discharge liabilities which may accrue to the State in the event of the wind-up of a defined benefit pension scheme. I set out the conditions earlier. As has been said, this stems from the Robins case in the United Kingdom and the case of Hogan and others v. the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, in respect of which the judgment of the European Court was delivered in April 2013.

I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Deputy Boyd Barrett. In the legislation we adopted there is a broad framework to protect 100% of defined benefit schemes up to €12,000. To put this in context, in 2007 the Society of Actuaries in Ireland showed that the average defined benefit pension being paid directly from scheme funds was €10,718. Deputy Boyd Barrett seems to be under a misapprehension. Our legislation protects up to 100% up to €12,000. I cannot remember if Deputy Boyd Barrett took part in the debate when that legislation was going through. Anyway, Deputy Boyd Barrett will appreciate that almost all workers who are members in whatever category of defined benefit schemes are people who have paid PRSI. Therefore, in addition to their defined benefit pensions, they have access to the State contributory pension. Deputies will remember that the discussions last year were in the context of 100% or nearly 100%, since there can be slight differences in how negotiations go. For example, sometimes people want an upfront lump sum and may then seek a smaller pension subsequently. Often in the case of a wind-up it is a matter of negotiation.

Our structure envisages €12,000 from a defined benefit scheme and a further €12,000 to €14,000 in terms of the value of the State contributory pension. Deputy Boyd Barrett referenced the United Kingdom. I imagine the Deputy is aware that our State contributory pension is significantly higher than the State contributory pension paid in the United Kingdom. I imagine Deputy Boyd Barrett has taken that into account in his comments. The Deputy should not always be downing Ireland, because in many cases we have-----

I was not downing Ireland.

You had your opportunity to speak, Deputy.

Let me say this: it has been my objective as Minister for Social Protection to protect and safeguard as many defined benefit pension schemes as possible.

Defined benefit schemes have been subject to enormous difficulties at certain stages due to collapses in various international equity markets. We have discussed on many occasions in the House the problems around the cost of buying German bonds. Thankfully, much of the crisis has at least begun to recede, if it has not receded fully. Deputy Boyd Barrett should not fail, as he frequently does, to acknowledge that Ireland has a strong social protection system, so much so that all the international and national evidence shows that poverty risk is reduced in Ireland by the greatest amount in the whole of the EU. That is a result of the strong protections in our social welfare system. I see the Deputy shaking his head as though he cannot believe the facts, but those are the facts.

I note that the function of this particular scheme is to enable the Minister for Finance to draw down moneys from the Central Fund to discharge liabilities which may accrue to the State on the winding up of a defined benefit scheme. This was discussed on a previous occasion in the context of other changes. In this case, the context is protecting as far as possible workers' pension entitlements. That is the purpose of what I am asking Deputies to do in the very unusual circumstance of a double insolvency. A question was asked - perhaps by Deputy Ó Snodaigh - on the potential number of double insolvencies. From the information I have, there are a number of Waterford Crystal schemes, including the one that is currently under the pension insolvency payments scheme, or PIPS. There are 610 pensioner members of the scheme. In terms of the discussions on the Hogan case and its consequences, I am advised that there are 1,774 people who were employees.

In a case of double insolvency, which is thankfully a rare event generally, the company and, separately but at the same time, the pension fund became insolvent during the lifetime of the previous Government. The workers exercised their legal right to take a case through the Irish courts arising from what happened in 2007. It was their right to do that. I have been endeavouring to see the former Waterford Crystal workers obtain a settlement which benefits them and I would appreciate the support of Members in that regard.

I offer my condolences to the family and friends of the former worker who died today. I do not know what the circumstances of the particular individual were, but I note the normal rules to reassure the Deputy in relation to Irish law. If a person has a spouse, the pension rules in particular may or may not provide for that. However, it has been a feature of these cases that the estates of deceased members may well qualify for proportionate shares depending on their particular personal circumstances and the rules of the relevant scheme. I wish to be clear about that, although the Deputy may know more about the individual's circumstances than I do. If the Deputy wants to give me the particular details, we can certainly make inquiries.

Pension schemes are ruled by the trustees under trust law, not centrally by government. The Government oversees public service pensions, but private pension schemes are subject to regulation by laws from the Oireachtas rather than being run directly by the Government, as the Deputy seems to suggest. The amendment is intended to allow the draw-down of funds. I hope it receives the support of the Members here.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn