Before we commence, I remind Members that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded. Amendments Nos. 1 to 66, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together by agreement.

I thank the House for allowing the Bill to be taken at this time. I also thank Senators for their forbearance in regard to the arrangements in this respect.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 66, inclusive, relate to the change I referred to on Committee Stage regarding the licensing arrangements for PRSAs. The Bill, as published, envisaged that this would be undertaken by the Pensions Board. However, following further consultation with my colleagues, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance, I now propose that the PRSA provider will be as set out in the revised definition. The following will be appropriately authorised entities: an investment firm, an insurance undertaking and a credit union which produce, market or sell PRSA products. This means, for example, that existing financial entities which are already appropriately licensed by the Central Bank or by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment can be PRSA providers. Any entity which wishes to be a PRSA provider can apply to the Central Bank for authorisation.

The requirement for a PRSA provider to be a separate company has been removed, which given the representation I received on this point should facilitate PRSA providers coming forward. I am aware that some companies are setting up separate companies. These changes mean that the sections of the Bill dealing with the licensing of the provider are now redundant and I propose to delete them.

As already envisaged in the Bill, the PRSA product will be approved and monitored by the Pensions Board and by the Revenue Commissioners, as provided by the insertion of section 92 in the Pensions Act. Revenue approval will be contingent on the Pensions Board having approved the product.

Section 94 to be inserted into the Pensions Act sets out the requirements for approval of a product in this regard. The applicant for approval of a product must have adequate levels of expertise, supply the Pensions Board with all the necessary information and organise the structure of its business in such a way that allows the board to perform its supervisory functions. The board shall prepare a code of conduct with respect to the producing, marketing and selling of PRSAs having regard to the need to provide for the protection of consumers and for the effective supervision of products.

Given the changes in arrangements which will reduce the work of the Pensions Board at the initial approval stage, the time limit for the board reaching a decision on product approval has been reduced from six months to three months. I am satisfied that the revised arrangements will not in any way lessen the protection for the consumer, the PRSA contributor.

The provisions regarding changes and disclosure information together with those regarding the employer providing access to a standard PRSA remain the same. The proposed changes in the licensing and monitoring of the PRSA provider mean that there are some technical consequential changes to be made in Part 4, with which I will deal later. Overall, I suggest the proposed amendments will simplify the legislation, which is a good thing.

Parliamentary history is being made this morning, as I am not aware of 66 amendments having been taken together previously as part of one proposal. I am glad there are only three parliamentary Stages effectively in taking this Bill because it has grown exponentially since its inception. It was a hefty Bill on Second Stage, by the end of Committee Stage it was a large Bill and by the end of Report Stage it will become almost a bound volume when all the changes are incorporated.

If we were not at this stage in the life of this Parliament and if there was not such general agreement that this is an important and positive Bill, for which many people are waiting, there would be concern at the way in which we are taking it. The Minister's Department, his officials, the Pensions Board and Revenue were helpful in the briefing they gave us. One lesson I learnt from the experience of dealing with this Bill is that it is one that should be taken in a specialist committee which could examine it and provide the necessary back-up to the members involved. We are at a disadvantage here. I worry that we are going through this Bill at such speed that there may very well be visits later to the Supreme Court, but we will have to live with that.

I presume there was wide consultation with the various interests involved before the drawing up of these amendments, which in effect create a new section. I had a communication yesterday from a professional body involved in pension brokering. To my surprise it seemed only to be aware of the Bill at this stage and sought to make a number of amendments to it. While I do not want to comment on the body, the way it has handled its business does not speak well of it, given that it communicated with me only yesterday on this Bill. I will forward its correspondence to the Minister's officials – who may have spoken to this body already – after the debate. In any event I was a little perturbed by this.

Amendment No. 67 on page 12 of the list of the amendments—

We are dealing only with amendments Nos. 1 to 66. We will deal with amendment No. 67 later.

The two points I want to make relate to section 67. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that there has been full consultation on these amendments and there is no mooted objection by any of the major interests to what is being done.

I can give the Senator that assurance. In relation to amendments Nos. 1 to 66 which deal with changes to the licensing arrangements, we consulted fully with the social partners and they are all in agreement in regard to them.

If the Senator has correspondence from an organisation that has a query regarding that aspect, he might let us have it and between now and when the Bill goes to the Dáil we will examine it. The representations may not be in regard to this point, as it is quite straightforward. Even though there are 66 amendments in regard to it, they all relate in effect to changes in the licensing arrangements.

I accept what the Senator said about the passing of this Bill. I thank him and his party col leagues for their views that this Bill should be passed. Given the timescale available, everyone concerned, including all those who had a long input into this legislation, want it to be passed. I thank all those for their forbearance in that respect.

I agree with what Senator Manning said about a specialist committee. I have had the opportunity during my time in Leinster House to serve on special committees which have each examined one piece of legislation. I found that an interesting experience and one which resulted in a better Bill in each case than if it had been dealt with through the normal course.

All the proposals we are making, in effect, have the agreement of the social partners. If there was a major objection to them, we would probably not be able to pass this Bill. I indicated when the Bill was introduced on Second Stage in the Seanad that we would leave a long timespan between that Stage and Committee Stage to allow people to make representations. We published the bones of the Bill long before we published the Bill to allow the industry and the social partners to give their views. I was upfront and said we would be amenable to amendments to the legislation. I approached all the various institutes and organisations representing interests in this area and said we were more than willing to listen to reasonable submissions to the legislation, as a result of which more than 200 were received. There is virtually no disagreement in relation to any aspects in respect of which proposals have been put forward.

Amendment No. 4 is a Government amendment. I draw the attention of Senators to the footnote to the amendment. It should refer to amendment No. 3 and should read

"[*This is the appropriate reference if amendment No. 3 is accepted]”.

May I speak on this amendment?

It has already been discussed with amendment No. 1, but I will allow the Senator.

On the question of PRSA products, I asked the Minister on Committee Stage how many types of pension schemes would qualify as PRSA products and he said two. I may be confusing myself on this. What is the status of buy-out bonds and retirement annuity contracts? The social partners recommended that there should be only two types of pension schemes. Obviously, there are four now. If my question makes sense, perhaps the Minister would answer it.

All the types of schemes the Senator mentioned will still remain, as will occupational pension schemes, because there is provision in the legislation for people even to transfer from them to PRSAs. This will not affect any of the existing schemes.

Can they transfer?

They can, from occupational pensions into PRSAs.

But not the others?

Subject to the legislation. I am informed that they cannot transfer from a buy-out bond into a PRSA but otherwise ordinary occupational pensions—

Is there a reason for that?

It is not covered in the legislation. That is all the information we have in relation to it. They are not similar to PRSAs in any event but, as I said earlier, all the other occupational pension schemes can be transferred into the PRSA subject to the arrangements in the legislation and subject to the tax provisions to which we will refer later on.

May I ask a question on amendment No. 33?

Yes.

I totally agree with what is being done here. What type of provision exists for the publicising of the revocation of the licence? After consultation the board may suspend or withdraw. Is there any obligation on the board to ensure such a withdrawal is widely publicised so that it does not just appear in Iris Oifigiúil or on the back in a small notice like some planning applications and to ensure that those affected are very much aware of this?

There is provision elsewhere in the legislation whereby if the board is revoking a product it has to put a notice in Iris Oifigiúil and also in public newspapers. I will be able to provide the reference later for the Senator.

Thank you.

The reference in amendment No. 64 to section 96(1) (c) is the appropriate reference now that amendment No. 21 has been accepted, not amendment No. 19 as it states on page 10 of the list of amendments.

For the record, in relation to Senator Manning's last query, amendment No. 42 provides that the board "shall publish notice of withdrawal of approval of a PRSA product in Iris Oifigiúil and in one or more newspapers circulating in the State within 28 days of such withdrawal”.

There are two references in amendment No. 67 to the Pensions (Amendment) Act, 2001. The references should be updated to read the Pensions (Amendment) Act, 2002.

This amendment relates to the taxation of PRSAs. It amends the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, to provide for various tax reliefs and arrangements for PRSAs. A four page summary of these proposals was made available to Senators before Committee Stage. The nature of tax legislation means that the specific legal provisions in this amendment run to many pages. It would be most useful, therefore, for me to highlight its main features.

Contributions paid into a PRSA will benefit from tax relief at the individual's marginal income tax rate. As with most tax reliefs, there is a limit on this relief. The maximum annual taxable deductible contributions are based on a percentage of the individual's earnings. The allowable percentages that arise with age are as follows: under 30, 15%; 30-39, 25%; and over 40, 30%. The 30% limit will apply, irrespective of age, to certain other categories of persons who typically retire earlier than usual. An earnings cap of €254,000 will apply also to PRSAs as in the case of retirement annuity contracts, for the purpose of tax relief.

Contributions paid in any year in excess of the maximum tax deductible contribution may be carried forward and claimed in future years, subject to the annual limit for those years. Similarly, contributions paid while out of the workforce may be carried forward and claimed against future earnings on return to paid employment, subject to annual limits. The limits apply to the total contributions made by the employee and employer where the employee is not a member of an occupational pensions scheme. For example, where an employee aged 29 contributes 5% of his or her earnings to a PRSA, the employer may contribute a further 10%, making a total of 15% on aggregate.

Employer PRSA contributions on behalf of employees will be fully deductible for tax purposes. Contributions to a retirement annuity contract and a PRSA will be aggregated when calculating the maximum tax relief. For example, a person aged 45 who gets tax relief on 25% of their earnings on contributions to a RAC may contribute an extra 5% to PRSAs, making up 30% tax relief on aggregate. Employees in an occupational pension scheme may use a PRSA as an AVC vehicle. In other words, additional voluntary contributions may be made to a PRSA. The age limits applicable to total employee contributions to an occupational pensions scheme and the PRSA/AVC are as follows: under 30, 15% of earnings; 30-39, 20%; 40-49, 25%; and over 50, 30%. Benefits can usually be provided at age 60, subject to the same early retirement rules that exist at present for the self-employed and employees, respectively.

The options available on retirement are similar to the options introduced for RAC holders and certain other persons in the Finance Act, 1999. A PRSA holder, therefore, may take 25% of the fund on retirement as a tax free lump sum and, subject to the existing rules, may invest the balance in an approved retirement fund, subject to a minimum investment in an approved minimum retirement fund, withdraw the balance in cash subject to a minimum investment in an AMRF or invest the balance in an annuity. If a contributor dies before retirement, the PRSA fund may pass in its entirety to the estate of the deceased person, free of income tax. Inheritance tax will apply, however, according to the usual rules. If a contributor dies after benefits have commenced, the taxation rules for the PRSA fund will be similar to taxation rules for ARFs on death. Transfers from a RAC to a PRSA will be allowed. Transfers from an occupational pension scheme to a PRSA will be allowed where the person was a member of the scheme for less than 15 years.

As the Minister indicated, this is an extremely long amendment which proposes a new part of the Bill. I have two questions about the amendment, which I support. The reliefs available under the new section 787E will be 5% higher than those currently available in the Fin ance Bill. Why is this the case? Is there a danger that this amendment will mislead consumers?

My other question relates to the provision in this amendment that will mean that people cannot transfer after 15 years. Why is this so? Is it not possible to introduce greater flexibility? Is this amendment intended merely as an initial provision? Will it be reviewed and, if so, who will review it? I presume it is intended to be flexible.

I thank the Senator for his queries. The limit of 15 years in relation to the transfer of an occupational pension scheme is intended to restrict the large-scale transfer of schemes to PRSAs. I am trying to prevent a mass movement of those with a substantial occupational pensions scheme to PRSAs. The amendment does not intend such mass transfer, which would be an undesirable outcome. The Department of Finance and my Department agreed that the 15 year limit would be reviewed by the Department of Finance in the light of experience on an annual basis.

The PRSA contribution limits are more generous than the existing limits for RACs. A decision was purposely made to encourage greater PRSA uptake. It could be argued that this complicates the overall tax position, which may be true, but it should be remembered that PRSAs are primarily intended to increase pensions provisions for those who do not have enough cover.

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 45, line 13, to delete "reference." and substitute "reference or, if in his sole and absolute discretion he believes that special circumstances, of which he is the sole judge, warrant examination of a complaint prior to those prescribed in (4)(a)(i) and (ii) above.”.

We covered this matter at some length on a previous day. It relates to the ombudsman. Everybody welcomed the fact that there would be an ombudsman to provide confidence to people and ensure they get a fair hearing if they have a grievance. I was pleased the last day that one of the amendments increased the time limit from three to six years.

I have a specific case which I made on Committee Stage in the context of a general point. If there is a genuine grievance out there it can cause enormous suffering and trauma. All of us in politics come across people who have the latter part of their lives destroyed by their sense of impotence in a situation where they feel they cannot get a fair hearing. In many cases all they want is a hearing, they want their say. The six year limit is very generous and I praise the Minister for making that change.

However, it may well be that from time to time this period may be exceeded and a person may want the ombudsman to adjudicate on whether he or she has a case to be heard. The amendment I propose is very restrictive. It proposes that if the ombudsman, in his sole and absolute discretion, believes that special circumstances exist it can warrant examination of a complaint prior to those prescribed under the six year rule. This is something which would work in the interests of everybody.

Politicians often feel very strongly that an individual has a genuine complaint and they feel a sense of humanity for the suffering and trauma of that person. At least now the ombudsman can say "Yes, there is a prima facie case which should be examined.” or “No, there is no real case there.” At least there is an element of finality to the process. The individual may not be happy but a line can be drawn under the case rather than have it fester and blight not just the last years of the individual's life but also the lives of his or her family.

In framing the amendment I was conscious of not opening floodgates. I want to put the ball very much in the court of the ombudsman, who would be the sole judge of what could happen. I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at this. I know that the Department of Finance will not like it – the Department of Finance does not like ombudsmen anyway. There are times when the judgment of politicians exceeds the collective wisdom of those in Merrion Street.

I am fully persuaded as always by Senator Manning's convincing argument, particularly with regard to the Department of Finance not liking this. That in itself merits my seconding the amendment.

I listened very carefully to what Senator Manning in particular said on Committee Stage and my officials have had some discussions with the Senator on the particular issue he raised. They had some contact with the people involved. When this Bill was brought forward originally, three years was the look-back period. We got the consent of the Government and the Department of Finance to change this to six years as a result of what was said in this House on Second Stage as well as other representations made to us and our own view that six years would be better. This is very significant.

I cannot accept the amendment but I point to subsection (5) which states:

The Pensions Ombudsman may investigate a complaint or dispute under this section notwithstanding that the act giving rise to the complaint or dispute was done prior to the establishment day if, and only if, the complaint or reference is made to the Pensions Ombudsman within the period specified in subsection (4)(a).

There has been discussion with my Department and others regarding what that actually means. We believe it would be up to the ombudsman to intervene in that in his own way. It would be possible for the ombudsman to interpret the nature of the act giving rise to the kicking in of the legislation.

When the Minister says "act" he means act with a small a?

Yes, the action, that is what it is. This comes up from time to time in relation to pension schemes when establishing whether it is the date of the establishment or the date that something happened that caused difficulties. Leaving the section as it is would cater for what the Senator is seeking and would give the Pensions Ombudsman some flexibility. If we were to make it too open-ended the ombudsman would be under horrendous pressure and would be snowed under with look-backs well beyond the six year period. By leaving it as it is the Pensions Ombudsman would have some discretion in this regard. It may be something that might be challenged, I fully accept that. Perhaps the trustees of a scheme might not agree with it being reviewed. However, it is preferable to leave it as it is. The Senator's amendment could cause some difficulty in that the Pensions Ombudsman would not be able to look at new cases arising after the date the legislation is passed.

I know the Minister has worked very hard on this but there are two problems with his reply. First, there is a vagueness about the terms "act" or "action." In a case where a person receives his pension payment and is dissatisfied with the sum he gets, believing he is entitled to a larger sum, does that action then entitle him to bring a challenge to the ombudsman about what has been proposed?

Second, the whole point of the ombudsman is that a person has access at low cost or free, it is confidential and attempts are made to resolve problems without all the expense of recourse to the legal process. Take the case of the person I have in mind who decides to go to the ombudsman and says: "This is my case, will you have a look at it, have I got a prime facie case or do you know anything about it?” However, the trustees, who may feel they have a case as well – there are two sides to every story – are the big guns, the individual is the small gun. The cost of taking a case for somebody like that can be so crippling that he may conclude at the end of the day that it is not worth it and give up.

Those are my two concerns about what the Minister has said. At the end of the day, everything will depend on the attitude of the ombudsman. Under my proposal, the ombudsman could still refuse to make an exception for somebody if he did not believe that they had a case. The Minister has suggested that the Ombudsman for Pensions may very well take an expansive view and in the past the general Ombudsman has acted in a way that many members of the Civil Service would not have liked him to. A great deal depends on the personality of the ombudsman concerned, making it a lottery situation.

I will not push this to a vote because it would be a foregone conclusion. I think I have made the case and I ask the Minister to revisit this issue in the Dáil when he has further reflected on it. However, I suspect that what I am proposing would have the support of all sides of the House.

This is a technical amendment arising from investigations made by the Ombudsman. On the advice of the Attorney General's office, this amendment will delete subsection (4) of the Bill. It deals with the power of the Pensions Ombudsman to determine whether any person can be legally represented in the Ombudsman's Act, 1980. The view of the Attorney General's office is that, as the determination of the Pensions Ombudsman is binding, unlike that of the general Ombudsman, the Pensions Ombudsman cannot have discretion on legal representation.

This is a technical amendment to correct a typographical error.

Amendments Nos. 71, 92 and 110 may be taken together by agreement.

These amendments will implement the EU Directive 98/49 EC, known as the Mobility Directive. The aim of this directive is to protect the rights of members of supplementary pensions schemes who move from one member state to another. Such people receive the same treatment as those who do not move states. Pension law in Ireland is already in substantial compliance with this directive and only marginal amendments are required.

Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 may be taken together by agreement.

Section 5 of the Bill inserts new definitions in connection with new provisions of the Bill.

These amendments make technical changes to the definition of a sectionalised scheme as it was pointed out to my Department that there was an error in the definition as drafted. A sectionalised scheme is an umbrella scheme which provides pension arrangements in a cost effective and efficient manner to a large number of employers, in respect of their employees.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Pensions Ombudsman to bring proceedings for a summary offence under the Pensions Act in relation to his jurisdiction.

What is the distinction between the role of the Pensions Board and the Pensions Ombudsman in taking prosecutions?

Under the legislation, it was decided to keep the functions of the Pensions Board separate from those of the Pensions Ombudsman. The ombudsman will be able to initiate prosecutions of his volition. There was a gap in what we had proposed in that the ombudsman was not in a position to take summary offences, which are minor offences, in the District Court. The legislation, as drafted, will allow him to do this.

Section 8 of the Bill allows for regulations to be made in relation to sectionalised schemes, and allows such schemes to be regulated either as single schemes or as group schemes.

The first part of this amendment is related to the previous group of amendments on sectionalised schemes. The second part of the amendment, the insertion of a new subsection into section 5 of the Pensions Act, 2002, will give the Minister powers, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the approval of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to make regulations in relation to pension matters covered by the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001, (No. 45). The intention would be to enforce these regulations as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill, following consultation with the appropriate Departments and the Pensions Board.

Section 5 of the principal Act allows the Minister to make regulations, where appropriate.

The purpose of this amendment is to give the Minister powers to make regulations to exempt pension schemes set up for the staff of the North-South bodies for any or all of the requirements of the Pension Acts. This is because it is envis aged that the schemes will be administered in Northern Ireland.

Amendments Nos. 77 to 86, inclusive, and amendment No. 114 may be taken together by agreement.

These are technical amendments arising from changes to PRSA providers. The amendments are to the principal Act as it relates to the Pensions Board role in monitoring supervision and the issue of guidance notes for pensions generally. I wish to clarify that the requirements only extend PRSA providers when acting as PRSA providers. Section 11 extends the provision covering investigations by authorised persons to PRSAs. These amendments arise as a consequence of the changes that I have been making in relation to the authorisation of PRSA providers. The amendments will limit the scope of the information supplied by the officers and employees of the PRSA to the board to information relating to PRSA activities of the PRSA provider. In addition, it will allow the board to require an employer to furnish it with such information as it is obliged to give under the obligations Section 1(2)(i), which covers the obligation of an employer to provide access to PRSA and to pay remit PRSA contributions. The effect of this is that the board will have the power to investigate an employer with regard to non-compliance with that section.

Amendments Nos. 87 to 89, inclusive, 91, 94 to 102, inclusive, 112 and 121 form a composite proposal and may be taken together.

These amendments propose to change the reference in the Bill from "1 January 2002" to "1 June 2002", where appropriate. This will result in an immediate benefit to people regarding these provisions who leave service after this date. I am aware from calls to the Department that a significant number of people will benefit from these proposals and await their implementation.

Is the Minister happy that staff are in place to ensure that this date can be met?

Yes. Some time ago the Department of Finance provided for a sizeable increase in the Pensions Board's staff complement so there will be plenty of staff to implement this measure. Staff have been, and are being, trained regarding the provisions of the Bill before it is passed.

I should have asked the Minister earlier when he expects the office of the ombudsman to be up and running.

As soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. That is the intention.

I have the ideal candidate whose name I will give to the Minister later.

This amendment will delete "transfer value" and substitute "transfer payment". This change is necessary because the term "transfer value" is not defined in the Bill and was used in error.

Amendments Nos. 93 and 103 to 106, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

Section 24 provides for benefits from defined contribution schemes and defined benefit schemes to be secured following the winding up of those schemes by transfer payments, regardless of the terms of the scheme concerned. Amendment No. 93 will allow the Minister to make regulations which permit the funding standard to be disapplied in the case of a scheme being wound up as it would serve no useful purpose in such circumstances.

Section 34 requires additional information in the annual report from the actuary regarding the funding position of the scheme. Amendment No. 103 will exempt wound up schemes from the requirement to provide such an annual report.

Section 35 requires actuarial valuations and audited accounts to be produced. Amendment No. 106 will exempt wound up schemes from the requirement to produce actuarial valuations and audited accounts.

Amendments Nos. 107 and 109 are related and may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 75, line 21, after "made." to insert the following:

In the case of the administrator the sum must be remitted to the trustees or management immediately and not be held for an unreasonable time."

The two amendments are grouped. I am not challenging that decision, but where are such decisions made? I have been a Member of the House for some time, but I have never asked how the grouping of amendments is decided.

Where amendments are related it has been the practice to group them. However, it is open to the Senator to ask that his amendment be discussed separately. Does the Senator wish to discuss his amendment separately?

Yes, please. I am not trying to be difficult about this issue and I do not mind if the Minister replies to the amendments together, which I gather he intends to do. However, there is a case to be made that these amendments are not so related that they should be taken together. There may be a case for taking them separately.

That is a matter of opinion which may or may not be correct. However, it is up to the Senator and we will take the amendments separately. I call the Senator on amendment No. 107.

Thank you, that is fine. As the Minister will remember from Committee Stage, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that moneys which are deducted by an employer for the sake of pensions are not unreasonably delayed in the hands of the administrator. This issue was brought to my attention by a group of pension funds in particular which felt that the administrator kept large sums of money in a drawer for a long period of time and there was a question as to who was the beneficiary.

This section appears to place the onus on the trustees and the management to remit everything within 21 days, but there does not appear to be anything to prevent the administrator from holding on to this money for a long time. I think the Minister will say that amendment No. 109 will allow for the transfer to the trustees and that may or may not be an adequate response. If the Minister is transferring it under amendment No. 109 so that the onus is on the trustees to put pressure on the administrator, what measures are open to the trustees to enforce this measure on the administrator? There do not appear to be any such measures. In other words, the administrator can prolong the holding of this money and the trustees cannot enforce the measure without difficulty. It would be better to leave this to the administrator with an obligation to do so.

What does the phrase "undue delay" mean in the context of amendment No. 109? This seems a vague and unacceptable term. If the amendment proposed that the administrator was not allowed to hold the money for longer than a specified period of time, that would be fine. However, the amendment suggests that there will be a tussle between the trustees, who have no statutory powers, and the administrators who could hold on to the money. I know of a case where this happened and that was indefensible. I am open to be convinced, but I am not sure that Government amendment No. 109 answers the point I made on Committee Stage.

I would like also to speak from the Government side of the House in support of the amendment. We are strongly in support of this amendment for the reasons Senator Ross gave, and I am happy to have had my name added and put forward as a seconder.

It seems that this is analogous to cases where people make investments. I do not often make investments but, on the advice of a dear friend, I made an investment in Greencore some years ago. I discovered that it is extremely difficult to extract money from financial agencies. They like to hold on to it because they get interest on it, and that is a pity. The individual investor should be cherished, and I am not sure that under this legislation as it exists without Senator Ross's valuable amendment the individual investor would be protected to the extent that he or she should be.

Senator Ross is perfectly right in saying that the sum should be remitted to the trustees immediately and not held for an unreasonable time. Going against this amendment would mean the sum could be held for an unreasonable time. I am quite sure the Minister wishes to be reasonable.

Is the Senator supporting Senator Ross's amendment or the Government amendment?

I am strongly supporting Senator Ross's amendment. I would go further and wish he were Minister for Finance – I say that from this, the Opposition, side of the House.

The Minister for Finance would love that. The trustees are responsible for the operation of pension schemes. I have some sympathy with what the two Senators have said. On the one hand, I am strongly advised that the trustees rather than the Pensions Board should have the power to force administrators to pay up; they would have a contract with them and would, therefore, be able to sue. On the other hand, I am somewhat persuaded by what Senator Ross has said both on this and on Committee Stage. The Pensions Board is of the view that the power should reside with the trustees. However, we will re-examine this between now and when it is introduced in the Dáil with a view to coming up with a better way of ensuring that there will be no undue delay in remitting money held by administrators.

I fully accept what the Senators have said. The focus should be on protecting the consumer. I will undertake to insert something more definite in the Dáil if that is possible, and if the Senators withdraw their amendments on that basis, I will also withdraw mine.

I am not inclined to push this to a vote in the circumstances because I would like to reciprocate the Minister's good will. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was short of a commitment, as he would know. I will withdraw my amendment if he gives a commitment to meet my requirements in the Dáil, in other words, if he agrees to introduce an amendment in the Dáil which will meet the criteria I have set down.

I would have to discuss that with my officials and with the Pensions Board. I would like something better than my amendment. I will at least move my amendment. However, I would like to table a stronger amendment imposing a much greater onus on administrators to pass money over. I come from a profession that has been accused over the years of retaining moneys on behalf of people for longer than necessary. Perhaps we can come up with a mechanism to put the onus on administrators to pay up. I am advised that it is up to the trustees to pursue the administrators. However, that is too weak and I would prefer a stronger provision.

I accept that this Minister is not one who gets pushed around by civil servants, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I will withdraw my amendment and look forward with great anticipation to what happens in the Dáil.

I will do likewise in relation to amendment No. 109.

Section 38 places a statutory requirement on employers to remit employee pension contributions within a specific time period, within 21 days of the end of the month in which the deductions were made, and to give a monthly statement of the deductions to the employee and trustees. Where an employer remits or pays any sums to the trustees, administrator or manager of a scheme on behalf of an employee, this amendment will require the employer to give a monthly written statement not only to the employee but also to the trustees and the administrator or manager.

Amendment No. 109 would be better than nothing. I hope we do not go back to the Dáil and find nothing is introduced.

I undertake to at least include amendment No. 109.

Or better.

This is a technical amendment to delete the reference to subsection (1), which is not required, as there is only one section.

Section 40 provides for changes in scheme rules and the exercise of discretionary power to augment members' benefits to be null and void in certain circumstances. This is a technical amendment which will extend the scope of this provision so that it will cover scenarios where any such act would cause any part of the scheme to become a defined contribution scheme.

We now come to Government amendment No. 115. Amendments Nos. 116 to 120, inclusive, are related. Is it agreed, therefore, to discuss amendments Nos. 115 to 120, inclusive, together? Agreed.

Section 44 provides for the amendment of the compulsory and voluntary reporting requirements on foot of the introduction of PRSAs.

Amendment No. 115 will mean that the relevant person shall report the matter referred to in this section to the board in writing as soon as possible rather than immediately. It is considered impracticable to expect a person to make such a report immediately. Amendment No. 116 will widen the scope of the provision to include persons other than those just operating a PRSA. Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 will mean that a breach of the new subsections of section 83 of the principal Act will be specifically covered by this subsection. Amendment No. 119 will delete the reference to subsection (1) in both sections 84 and 85 of the principal Act as the wider reference to the sections is now appropriate. Amendment No. 120 is a technical amendment to replace a reference to "subclauses" with a reference to "clauses".

Amendment No. 122 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 123 is related. Is it agreed to discuss amendments Nos. 122 and 123 together? Agreed.

This amendment proposes to delete the word "and" where it is incorrectly positioned in the Bill and to reposition it.

I compliment the Minister on this important and highly complicated Bill. The sooner it can be implemented the better. The Minister will be aware that Senator O'Toole, Senator Ross and I were unhappy at the way the Bill was processed through the various Stages. We were unhappy at the large number of new sections that appeared on Committee Stage and the large number of amendments on Report Stage.

The Minister and his officials rightly consulted widely with the industry. Apart from the document I mentioned earlier, which I will pass on to the Minister's officials, I am not aware of any other group that was not fully consulted. Their expertise went into the making of the Bill. However, in the process this House was, at times, sidelined. Information came late and we did not have the time required to consider all aspects of the legislation. The lesson to be learned from this experience is that Bills like this should be referred to a House committee where they could be examined in more informal surroundings with access by the Members to expertise.

I express my appreciation for the help I received from the officials in the Department, especially from Ms Vaughan. She went out of her way to be helpful and was painstaking in her explanations to me of the various parts of the Bill. I thank the Pensions Board and Revenue officials, who were helpful in explaining different sections of the Bill at the briefing yesterday.

I compliment the Minister on getting this important legislation through the House. In the nature of things, it may have less searching scrutiny in the Lower House. In any event, I hope it will soon be on the Statute Book. I suspect that one or two sections of the Bill may ultimately be scrutinised out of here. That is in the nature of most legislation that is passed and there is probably little we did today that will change that.

Between now and the Bill going to the Dáil, I urge the Minister to look again at the ombudsman question. I saw no point in pressing the issue and I know that, instinctively, the Minister is more at one with me on this aspect than with his colleagues on Merrion Street. He showed openness in dealing with Senator Ross's amendment. I congratulate him on getting the Bill through the House.

This is a very difficult and technical Bill. Many of the amendments, from both Government and Opposition, are almost impossible to decode unless they are considered in great detail. The Minister's grasp of the Bill is superb. It is an example of the benefit of having a competent Minister in an area of great difficulty and intricacy. He had a much better grasp of the legislation than the rest of us. Sometimes Ministers have come to the House without a proper grasp of their legislation but this Minister was not one of them. To that extent I compliment him. He was well briefed and took the trouble to respond to the points raised. It did not matter that we did not agree on all of them.

It is regrettable that the wider pensions industry has not been addressed in this Bill, which is mainly concerned with new developments rather than the industry itself. I plead with the Minister to look at the industry. Pensions are something people understand they have but do not understand anything about, and this Bill will not educate them. People contribute to pension funds but then ignore them for 30 or 40 years. For some reason they do not, nor do they want to understand what is happening to their money. The Minister said as much in reply to a point I raised.

There is a very paternalistic attitude to pensions from those who organise them. This is a problem the Minister may consider because serious issues are involved. There is the issue of where the money goes and whether it is well invested. I submit it is not well invested and all the evidence is on my side. There is the issue of what happens in the pensions industry, what people in the industry charge and why they charge and are paid so much for doing so little and being so unsuccessful.

There is also the issue of transparency, where those of us paying into pension funds are putting money into funds we know nothing of and are not told. We do not know what we are paying for, nor the charges we have to make. However, we know that some people are getting very rich out of the industry and they are not delivering. That will be the issue to be addressed in the next pensions Bill.

This is a very big and untransparent area. The Bill addresses certain issues and there is the Pensions Board, which is politically appointed. However, there is also a huge, almost invisible area that has not been explored, either by financial correspondents or the Government. It is a very self-satisfied, self-perpetuating industry. This should be explored much more deeply by Governments in future and I hope the next pensions Bill will deal with other areas of the industry and make it much more transparent to those who create it so that it becomes directed from the bottom and not the top.

I congratulate the Minster on his grasp of detail and for the way in which he has taken the Bill through the House. It is an example to many other Ministers who have not been so knowledgeable or acted so skilfully. I also thank him for being in attendance throughout rather than sending in a Minister of State.

I also thank the Minister for his attendance. He has been present for all social welfare legislation introduced to the House over the past five years. I agree with much of what Senator Ross said about the pensions industry.

In this Bill the Minister has begun the process whereby ordinary people can avail of pensions. The most important aspect of the legislation is that members of the public will have greater awareness of and control over their pensions, and that is to be welcomed. I thank the Minister's officials, the Pensions Board and the Revenue, who met us yesterday for a briefing. They have been very helpful.

I thank Senators for their forbearance when dealing with this Bill. The debate was not conducted in a way I, as a parliamentarian, would have wished and I apologise for that. Difficulties arose from the start of the process when we said we would be open to submissions and amendments. As the debate progressed we realised there could have been a better way to proceed and I apologise to the House and to Senators for bearing the brunt of what happened. However, we can take some pride in going to the Dáil with a cleaner Bill and hopefully we will have fewer technical amendments. Senators should recognise there were some key issues we had to deal with here.

We will look at some of the issues raised before going to the other House. I agree to a certain extent with some of the sentiments expressed by Senator Ross on the issue of pensions and transparency. There was a national pensions policy initiative on my desk when I became Minister and the issue of raising pension coverage in the general population came from that. That was the reason for bringing forward this Bill. Time will tell whether the Bill is successful when passed. It is subject to PPF reviews and renegotiations, as there are PPF commitments to ascertain whether this will ultimately be successful in increasing pension cover. I do not doubt we will be coming back more often with a pensions Bill than heretofore and perhaps on those occasions or at intervening times we may be in a position to deal with some of the other issues to which Senator Ross referred.

Regarding the kind of pension structure the legislation sets up, it will be more transparent and we will know more about charges and disclosure to people. People will be more aware of what they are getting or not getting for their investment.

It has obviously happened before that the Pensions Board appeared before Oireachtas committees and perhaps that should happen more often so we can look at the board's workings and powers. Going back to Senator Manning's point, it was probably preferable to leave this with a specialised committee, given the back-up available to people. However, there were time constraints. This was an agreed process – there was all-party agreement in both Houses on passing this before the dissolution of the Dáil – and it was best to get it passed.

I thank Senators for their remarks. I thank my officials, who were absolutely excellent as always, in particular the official who has been living with me for the past four and a half years in dealing with this. I thank her particularly for her efforts. They say behind every good man is a good woman and I assure the House I have excellent officials – there are more officials than those behind me. I also thank the Revenue and Pensions Board officials, who were available at all times of the day and night – I assure the House that meant well into the night at times. I also thank the Cathaoirleach and his officials. Having been a Whip in the Dáil I was very much aware of the difficulties for people in putting down amendments and I thank the Seanad staff for all they have done. It has not been unappreciated.

When is it proposed to sit again?

On Thursday next at 2.30 p.m.