Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae wishes to discuss CIÉ salaried pensioners, who have had no increase granted to their pensions since 2008.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Imagine that, a Cheann Comhairle. This is regarding the CIÉ superannuation scheme of 1951 and the impact on 2,279 CIÉ salaried workers. A number of these people visited our group in Leinster House 2000 a couple of weeks ago, one of them being Christy Murphy from Tralee, who was an inspector in his time and managed school transport for CIÉ, and there were a number of ladies with him who had very important roles in their time. They operated as inspectors, supervisors or managers and an awful lot of responsibility was placed on their shoulders. They had to be loyal and fair to all those they dealt with and maintain the highest standards and efficiencies in their operations.

Current beneficiaries of the scheme who were employed pre-1995 were compelled to contribute PRSI at the class D rate and, therefore, unlike class A contributors, they have no entitlement to the contributory State pension nor its associated benefits, such as the fuel allowance, the living alone allowance or any of the other allowances you would get if you were on a State pension. The contributory State pension payment has increased by approximately €54 per week since 2008. If the payment is sanctioned, such increases will be paid to pensioners from the end of July. No increase has been granted by the CIÉ board to pensions and payments since 2008, more than 15 years ago.

The salaries of current CIÉ company workers have increased since 2016 but there has been no increase for these honest, hard-working people who gave their loyalty to CIÉ. The Government is the principal shareholder in CIÉ. I know the Minister of State does not work at the Department in question but I am relying on him to bring the case forward to the line Minister, put it on the table and ask him to deal with it. Seventy-four of these people are women who now find themselves paid a lower pension than they would be paid if they were on the contributory State pension. Not to mind the pensions they were entitled to when they retired, they are not getting that at all.

Legal proceedings were held in the High Court in May 2022 regarding CIÉ's obligations on funding the scheme. Judgment is awaited and the case is due for mention in January 2024. God almighty, these people are now in their 80s. I am not blaming the Minister of State at all, but keeping them from the middle of May of last year until January next year just to have the case mentioned is not fair play. These people deserve much better than that, and I again appeal to the Minister of State about this. It involves more than 2,200 people in their 80s. Is it possible that these people would get their pensions increased at the same rate at which the State pension has been increased since 2008?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a little bit worried now, before the Minister of State answers. If this is a case before the courts, I do not know how we have not been advised of that.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know what kind of a court it is, a Cheann Comhairle, but the whole story is wrong anyway.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it we would have been advised if it were before the courts. It would be sub judiceand we would not be dealing with it.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has a copy of the same document as me, does he not?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a prepared response from the Minister, Deputy Ryan, anyway.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The case is not sub judice, is it?

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not aware that it is but, I have to say, I am not an expert in the matter.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume the Department would know if it were sub judice.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for raising this important matter, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Ryan. I would like to clarify that issues in respect of Córas Iompair Éireann pension schemes are primarily a matter for the trustees of the pension schemes, the CIÉ Group and its employees. The employees of the CIÉ Group companies, namely, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and CIÉ, are provided with pension benefits on retirement from one of two schemes, namely, the regular wages scheme, which covers front-line staff such as bus and train drivers in the three CIÉ companies, and the 1951 scheme, which mainly covers administrative staff. The 1951 scheme is the last remaining open and unchanged defined benefit pension scheme in the State.

Pension schemes are required to annually measure their liabilities in accordance with accounting standards and the statutory minimum funding standard. As of the end of December 2022, the balance sheet deficit for these two defined benefit pension schemes was €396.5 million. While the funding position improved during 2022, and the 1951 scheme now meets the minimum funding standard required by the Pensions Authority, the regular wages scheme currently does not meet the minimum funding standard and the funding level is marginal and subject to future market volatility.

I understand that under the accounting standards, the CIÉ pension schemes have the largest deficit of any company in Ireland. I further understand that the CIÉ Group is actively engaged in introducing changes to its pension schemes aimed at rectifying the significant deficit in order to meet the statutory minimum funding standard, and that these changes also aim to sustain the pension schemes into the long term.

In respect of the regular wages scheme, I am advised the Minister for Transport signed three statutory instruments related to the scheme on 6 July 2022, with an operative date of 18 July 2022. The main change introduced under this statutory instrument was an increase in the retirement age of members of this scheme from 60 to 65 years of age.

Regarding the 1951 scheme, I understand that CIÉ has prepared and submitted a draft statutory instrument to give effect to Labour Court recommendations for the 1951 scheme, as passed by a ballot of trade union members in May 2021. This is being considered by the Department of Transport in conjunction with advisers in NewERA. The key changes proposed would introduce an increase in the age of retirement from 60 to 63 years of age. The Deputy may also be aware the rules governing the 1951 scheme are currently subject to ongoing legal proceedings before the Commercial Court, and the 1951 committee is seeking an interpretation of a rule of the scheme from that court. The hearing commenced on 24 May 2022 and ran for four days, and the outcome from the hearing is expected in the coming months.

I am advised that the proceedings are next due for mention before the Commercial Court on 24 January 2024.

Concerning pension increases for CIÉ pensioners, I reassure the Deputy that the Minister for Transport recognises that it must be incredibly frustrating for the 2,270 CIÉ-salaried pensioners that the State contributory pension payment has increased by approximately €54 since 2008, while there has been no such increase in their pensions over the same period, and that this must be particularly frustrating for the 72 female members of CIÉ pension schemes whose monthly pension is significantly less than the State contributory pension.

I am advised that an increase for pensioners would only be possible when the schemes are capable of sustaining such increases. Furthermore, any such proposal would be dependent on the advice of the scheme actuary at the time an increase is proposed, and it would be done in agreement with the trustees of the schemes. However, it is my understanding that until such time as schemes can sustainably afford pension increases, pension increases are, regrettably, not possible.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the dedicated service these people gave, all we are here for is to see that fair play is given to everyone who comes to us. This is a very serious matter. The Minister of State said it was before the Labour Court, but it has been going on for so long and these people are so old. They are now at an age when they want fair play. If this carries on for two or three more years, how many of them will die away? Is that what CIÉ wants? I ask the Minister of State to intervene to ensure fair play is administered to these people.

Independent actuaries, Willis Towers Watson, reported on 25 October this year that the 1951 scheme is capable of awarding a moderate level of increase of 2.6% to current pensioners in 2023, without impacting on the scheme's long-term sustainability, and is capable of awarding similar increases year on year for the next ten years. As these people have not been treated fairly for the past 15 years, I ask the Minister of State to intervene to ensure they are rewarded, compensated or remunerated in the same way that all other pensioners of the same grade were in every other department. At the time they started, CIÉ was a State body. Now it is controlled through the Government still being the major shareholder. We have a role to play. I appeal to the Minister of State to do his best for these honourable people.

Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reassure the Deputy that the Minister for Transport and his officials are working closely with CIÉ to seek a resolution to the ongoing pension issues in the group. I am also advised that the key step to resolving the CIÉ pension deficit and, therefore, towards making pension increases payable is to implement the Labour Court recommendation that has previously been accepted in a ballot of the CIÉ trade union group. The Labour Court recommendation also contained an ex gratiapayment of €1 million to pensioners below the living wage, across both CIÉ pension schemes, which has already been implemented in a Workplace Relations Commission agreement in respect of the regular wages scheme for front-line staff.

Unfortunately, the conclusion of the 1951 scheme’s actuary was that there was insufficient headroom in the minimum funding standard level required and, due to the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 1951 committee High Court case, it would not be prudent to award a pension increase at the current time. CIÉ began the process of amending the statutory instruments that govern the rules of the 1951 scheme to implement the Labour Court recommendation in July 2021. This process involves several formal stages, including a statutory observation period and a review period by the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, and NewERA. The implementation of the Labour Court recommendations protects the 1951 scheme and keeps it open. The CIÉ board has also advised the Department of Transport that if the Labour Court recommendation is not implemented, they will close the 1951 scheme to new entrants and future accrual.

On behalf of the Minister, I again acknowledge Deputy Healy-Rae for bringing this issue forward. I assure him his concerns have been heard. I will also convey the points raised to the Minister.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have mentioned that Deputy Mattie McGrath is unable to be here. He was part of this Topical Issue.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will say something else. We have just done something that I do not think we would ever have done before. I thank the Minister of State for being here to deal with this. I acknowledge that he and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, are unfailingly helpful in dealing with the House and Members. I also acknowledge that, routinely, when matters relating to transport are tabled for Topical Issues, we get a call from the Department of Transport to say it has no responsibility for them.

We have just had a debate about something that is before the courts. It is a basic principle of the operations of this place that we do not discuss matters that aresub judice. It is very interesting that the officials who wanted us to not engage with this Topical Issue because it was not a matter for them did not see fit to tell us that this was a matter that was before the courts. It only became clear when the Minister of State's response was being given in the aftermath of Deputy Healy-Rae's contribution. I consider this a profoundly serious matter that needs to be raised with the Secretary General in the Department of Transport because what has transpired here should not transpire.

The fourth Topical Issue, which also concerns a very important matter, has been tabled by Deputy Cannon. He wishes to discuss the serious deficit in public transport links between Loughrea and Galway city. The Department of Transport told us it was not responsible for this either.