Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

The position of active and deferred members is being improved by this legislation because at the moment there is nothing there. That is not really the issue, which is whether this is being improved enough and if the process is fair. These are the issues we are grappling with, particularly as the work is being done at the expense of existing pensioners who, as of today, cannot have benefits touched. These are the issues we are trying to balance.

In that sense, it is the case that the issues highlighted to us with regard to deferred pensioners do not exactly fit with this Bill. They have brought to light problems that exist for this group, whose position may be improved with the passing of this legislation but is still worse than it was before the 2009 Act was signed into law. This is linked to the argument made about the fact that what the Minister termed "viable" arrangements are being discussed in many of these schemes. For some of the groups involved, the viable arrangement to keep the scheme within the funding criteria is not viable at all. Their interests are not being protected and these people see themselves as being disproportionately impacted by the mechanism put forward. Discussions under way currently in the Irish Airlines Superannuation Scheme are under the auspices of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission, so by virtue of the legislation they exclude existing pensioners and the deferred group from attendance. Those discussions formulated a proposal resulting in some people having a loss of retirement income of up to 50%, which would be a devastating blow. I can understand the logic that it may be difficult to mandate a consultation but these people are currently excluded because of legislation. It should be about allowing people to participate when such a group can come together and have interests protected. It is not about not being able to sign off on a process without tracking down every person in Lithuania who used to work here.

For example, in the IASS there are more than 5,000 deferred members who are getting an astronomical hit. Through social media and contacts they have formed a group and their voice should be heard in a balanced way. These are similar to the points made by Deputy O'Dea regarding pensioners. The three strands must be brought together in a crisis so as to balance interests. That can only be done fairly when the three groups are represented. I know the Minister has heard the point and she is suggesting it could be done by some sort of statutory instrument, guideline or something else in legislation. Given that there is a legislative basis for these people being excluded, a reversal of that process may be the way out. If a group of deferred pensioners wish to attend talks in the Labour Relations Commission, the unions representing the active members - their former colleagues and friends - will tell them to come in. The difficulty would occur if they were prevented from attending. The legislative proposal should be considered. These people are outside of a company but we are not addressing the possibility of overturning the 2009 Act. I can understand why that is so but the matter is now in the public domain and people feel it needs to be addressed.