Posted on March 30, 2017
Today is the day that British Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Article 50. She will address the House of Commons on the issue within the next hour. The Seanad's Brexit hearings are a welcome initiative, but we also need to consider raising the issue of Brexit in other debates in the House. Yesterday, we in Labour published our detailed Brexit policy, outlining 20 concrete actions that the Irish Government should be taking. We expressed our concern at the lack of detail from the Government regarding what it proposed to do as the Brexit negotiations got under way. What positions will it take?
The Government needs to ensure that adequate money - €1 billion from the rainy day fund - should be deployed for the capital investment likely to be needed as a result of Brexit. A €250 million Brexit trade adjustment fund should be set up to support directly Irish businesses that suffer because of trade upheaval with the UK. New transport connections will be needed, in particular at major ports and airports. Others have pointed to the instability in Northern Ireland. The prospect of Brexit negotiations is not helping that situation. A special status for Northern Ireland needs to be incorporated in the negotiations. At a minimum, a new Irish protocol to the EU treaties recognising the common travel area, the Good Friday Agreement and the unique situation of the Irish Border must be negotiated.
There have been disturbing signals about what might happen because of Brexit. In an article in today's The Irish Times, Ms Patricia King points out the downward pressure likely to be applied as a result of the UK no longer having to observe minimum terms and conditions of employment as set down in EU treaties. The concern is that there will be a race to the bottom among Irish businesses. Pressure will be placed on Ireland and other EU countries to reduce the quality of workers' terms and conditions.
Posted on March 23, 2017
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to be here to propose this Bill. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, to the House. I have received an indication from the Government that it will not be opposing this Bill on Second Stage. I am very grateful for and delighted about that news. I acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of Dr. David Parris and Mr. Gerhard Scully and I thank them for being here to support the Bill and for their bravery and courage in raising publicly the important equality issue it seeks to address. The Bill is the Pensions (Equal Pension Treatment in Occupational Benefit Scheme) (Amendment) Bill 2016. I am delighted to be proposing it on behalf of Labour Party Senators. My colleague, Senator Ged Nash, will be seconding it and Senator Kevin Humphreys will be speaking on it. We are putting it forward as a Labour Party Private Members' Bill. We acknowledge the legal expertise and help provided on the Bill by our drafter, Mr. Finbarr O'Malley, and also by Professor Robert Wintemute of King's College, London, who has given us some very important legal input on the Bill. I also acknowledge the support of Ms Marguerite Bolger, senior counsel, who acted in the legal case that forms the impetus for the Bill.
Let me outline the background to the Bill. It seeks to address the very small number of cases in which retired employees who, because of their sexual orientation, were not legally permitted to marry the person they desired to marry before a particular date were deprived of certain pension or survivor benefits as a result. It was drafted, as I have said, in response to a particular case which I know the Minister is aware of, namely, the case of David Parris v. Trinity College Dublin before the European Court of Justice. Judgment was given on 24 November 2016. In that case, David Parris had argued that the Trinity pension scheme was discriminatory as it provided that a Trinity employee's partner would only be entitled to a survivor's pension where the employee had married or entered a civil partnership before reaching the age of 60. The Bill seeks to address the issue that arose in that case. It will provide that if a pension scheme makes a survivor's pension entitlement dependent on the employee having married or entered civil partnership before a certain age, this would breach the principle of equal pension treatment on the sexual orientation ground where the reason the employee did not comply with the requirement was because he or she was legally incapable of marrying prior to the entry into force of civil partnership law.
Before I turn to the provisions of the Bill I will outline the facts of the Parris case in a little more detail. The applicant had been living for over 30 years in a stable relationship with his partner. His employer's pension scheme provided for the payment of a survivor's pension to the spouse or civil partner of a member. However, the survivor's pension was payable only if the member had married or entered into a civil partnership before reaching the age of 60.