I have a petition circulated to every Teachta Dála and Minister in the House from the workers at Irish Life who are about to take a ballot on strike action over their defined benefit pension scheme. I believe the Taoiseach has not signed it yet but I hope he will. It asks every Teachta Dála and Senator to recognise the absolute injustice being done by a company, which is solvent and very well off with a €240 million surplus in its defined benefit scheme, where it has withdrawn from talks and reduced its defined benefit scheme to the mercy of the casino stock markets while pushing its 1,000 workers into a defined contribution scheme.

We saw recently the turmoil in the stock market. This morning we were arguing about the plans the Government has made to ensure we all have a good future. When workers are left to the mercy of the gambling casino of the stock market, it means they have no guarantee of a good future. Indeed, they could be paying all their working lives into a pension scheme to find at the end of it, because of the behaviour of those who gamble, they will have no pension at all. We do not want to drive any more people into poverty or workers into worse conditions.

What does the Taoiseach think of companies like Irish Life, which out of the pure greed of making more profits, will withdraw, without any discussion, from such a scheme, leaving 1,000 workers at the mercy of the market? It is significant in the case of Irish Life because it administers most of the other pension schemes which exist in this country. There are over 100,000 workers on defined benefit schemes who will also feel extremely vulnerable if Irish Life gets away with this. When these workers vote to take strike action and stand up for themselves, I hope the Taoiseach and his Cabinet will support their petition. This goes to the heart of who is standing up for decent planning, justice and equality. If we throw these workers to the mercy of the market, more will follow. Will the Taoiseach condemn Irish Life for unilaterally withdrawing from a defined benefit scheme and forcing these workers to take action against the company?

I am afraid I do not have the details of the particular defined benefit pension scheme to which the Deputy referred.

The Taoiseach was sent the petition on this matter.

The Deputy knows how pensions operate and pensions law. It is the trustees of the pension fund who make the decisions about the pension fund, not the employer or the members, subject to the rules laid down by the Pensions Authority. A covenant or deed of trust will set out the obligations and rights of the employer and others. Everything falls under trust law in that regard.

Trustees have a responsibility to pensioners and future pensioners to ensure whatever pension fund exists is solvent. We could not have a situation whereby people would continue to pay into a pension fund, some people would get a full pension, but then, at a certain point when the money ran out, those retiring thereafter, having paid too, would get nothing.

That is not a situation that is right or fair.

I agree with the Deputy that employers should not withdraw unilaterally from any discussion on amendments to a pension fund in resolving a pension fund issue. We have mechanisms, including the Workplace Relations Commission, through which disputes such as this can be adjudicated on. It may be an option in this case for it to be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission and have it resolved there without a strike. If that is an option, I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that there should not be a strike until the matter has been considered by the Workplace Relations Commission. If employers are going to make changes, they should give adequate notice of any change to the members. The Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, is working on laws to strengthen the protections for members of defined benefit schemes. Work on it is advanced, although it does run into genuine difficulties. One of the proposals made is to make employers liable for any deficit that may arise in a pension scheme. The difficulty in doing so, of course, is that it might result in putting a company out of business which would cause unemployment. Workers might receive their pensions but they would lose their jobs long before they received their pensions. As well as that, it could hobble other companies and put them at a disadvantage in dealing with their competitors. There are overlapping issues which all need to be seen in the round.

The fact that the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, has legislation on this issue before the House indicates that a Cabinet concern that defined benefit schemes are being treated recklessly by employers. Previously, AIB, Aer Lingus and BT unilaterally moved away from defined benefit schemes. That is why various parties in the House have legislation to try to control reckless companies that, even when their pension schemes are not in trouble, move away from defined benefit schemes and reduce workers' rights by pushing them into defined contribution schemes. Workers have paid €20 million into the Pensions Authority for it to protect their rights and future pensions. However, this means that they are not being protected. When will the legislation be brought before the House in order that we can amend it to make it more robust? In the meantime, would it not be prudent for the Taoiseach or the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection to call on Irish Life to desist in its move away from a defined benefit scheme until we have had published and a chance to discuss proper legislation to control reckless profit-making companies?

The Minister is very advanced in producing legislation in this area in the form of amendments to the existing Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill that is before the Houses. The legislation will require employers to give adequate notice and establish a dispute solving mechanism, perhaps involving the Pensions Authority. We need to bear in mind the enormous risks that could arise in making employers legally responsible for any deficit in a pension fund. That could result in the loss of jobs if it were to make a company insolvent or impose big losses on it. In other cases, it could hobble companies. For example, a company that has big investment plans - the Deputy referred to such plans - might find that it could no longer have those plans if its balance sheet was changed fundamentally from being one that enabled it to borrow to invest to one that did not enable it to do so because a pension liability had been included in it. We need to bear all of these things in mind. We always debate two laws in this House - the law in front of us and the law of unintended consequences. Therefore, we need to make sure we get it right.