Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that the Minister has reached this conclusion. It is not a case of the workers not believing they have a legal case. Rather, they do not have the wherewithal to take on the State with the Attorney General defending. Recognising that they are pensioners and their pensions are meagre compared with what they might have had had they remained in the employ of the Civil Service, they are not financially strong enough. They are also relatively few in number, so a small contribution from a large number of people to pay for a class action and get a decent hearing is not possible. Given how everything has changed significantly for them, they were like us in hoping for a review to address this wrong.

I have been reading about this situation for years and I am not taking a constituency point of view. I have taken difficult decisions in the House about Shannon Airport, Aer Lingus and so on where I believed they were justified. Assurances were given to these employees to the effect that the move would not involve any worsening of employment conditions, but a pension is always a condition of employment. When a comparison is made between two entities, and conditions transfer with employees, it follows that there is an incumbency, perhaps on the State, to ensure the commitment is followed through. When entering any employment that depends on a private pension, there are no guarantees about the outcome. For example, there could be a catastrophe along the lines of what happened to our economy. Given that the commitment was linked to the workers' employment as civil servants, however, their clear understanding and expectation was that they would be no worse off. For HR purposes, they were facilitating the State by transferring to the company. The handful who did not believe the political system have been proved right. They have retained their benefits and pension entitlements in full.

It is difficult to justify what the State has allowed to happen, although I do not mean that in political terms. I call on the Minister to re-examine the matter or consider entering a consultation process with representative groups. Often, it is only decades after a particular event that we realise a wrong has been committed and the State finds itself having to pay out, issue apologies and so on. One such wrong has been done in this case. The current legislation is clear, in that those who transfer from Aer Rianta to the Shannon Airport company will be given commitments. It follows that this was the express desire when people who transferred previously would not end up in a worse position. Having read the Dáil transcripts and notwithstanding the fact that the legislation itself did not follow for a long time, I do not doubt that the Legislature's intention was to ensure that all of the employees' conditions would be maintained. While I do not want to second-guess what will happen in the courts, the Minister is aware that when issues before a court grow complex, the judge or judges often read the Houses' debates in an attempt to understand what the Legislature's wishes might have been. It is clear from the debates in question that the desire was to give employees full confidence and that it was all just a method of housekeeping for the Department. For example, why remain in the Department's employ when people could move to a different entity and retain the same terms and conditions?

I am not happy to support the Government's approach. Nor was I happy when people from my party were in government and reached the same conclusion. I am disappointed that the Minister has not considered the issue more broadly.