Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill in general, but like colleagues I have concerns about section 34. Many of these concerns have been allayed by the amendments put forward by the Minister on Committee Stage and I welcome those. Unlike Deputy Dooley, I believe there is a need for this Bill and that we need to deal with the separation of Shannon Airport legally. However, I share his view and that of Deputy Ellis that we do not need to deal with the pensions issue now.

To me, the Minister seems to be a bit like a market trader, where he has a few nice apples he wants to get rid of, but has a couple of not so nice apples he also wants to get rid of, so that when someone comes in to buy a bag of apples, he sticks in one or two the person would not choose. I see no need for the pensions issue to be dealt with now when the urgent issue is the separation of Shannon Airport. I accept the analogy regarding the referendum, that when people vote they know exactly what they are voting for. However, there have been referenda where people welcomed in principle the concept being proposed by the Government, but rejected it because of the detail published in the Bill. The referendum on committees is the most recent example of this and it is slightly ironic that we are sitting in Committee to discuss this issue.

On pensions in general, are pension rights part of working conditions? Former workers in Shannon Development have a guarantee in section 18 of this Bill that the transfer of ownership shall not operate to worsen the scales of pay and conditions of service applicable to the staff of those companies immediately before the Shannon Airport transfer. This is of limited comfort to them, as there is no similar guarantee with regard to pensions. Unfortunately, there is precedent in this regard. In 1968, when staff were assigned to Aer Rianta from the Department of Transport and Power, under official notice 4/68 they were guaranteed that accepting the transfer to Aer Rianta would not in any case involve any worsening of conditions of employment. While there was no worsening of conditions of employment, there was a worsening of pension rights.

For example, in the case of the officials here with the Minister, presuming they are officials of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, when they retire, their pensions are linked to the pay of those in the positions. However, in the case of workers in Aer Rianta, their pension was no longer linked to those in the positions they held previously but was a defined benefit scheme. Of course, nowadays a defined benefit scheme looks very attractive relative to what is on offer with a defined contribution scheme, but nevertheless it was a lessening of pension rights for these workers. This is something the Minister should address, particularly in regard to Shannon Development workers. He should guarantee they will not be any worse off than they were, not just in regard to the conditions of service, but also explicitly to pension rights.

If the Minister wanted to right a wrong of the past, he might want to look back as far as 1968. I know he has had correspondence from some people who have pointed out the situation. The Department seems to have formed the view that the Dublin Airport Authority, formerly Aer Rianta, has complied with its obligations with regard to pension entitlements with regard to the terms agreed at the time these workers accepted a contract of employment with Aer Rianta back in the 1970s. However, this flies in the face of what was in a circular in 1968 and what some of the Minister's predecessors would have said in the Dáil in 1973.

Turning to more specific issues, I have looked in detail at the proposed amended section 32. The Minister proposes to substitute this for section 32 of the 1998 Act, which was in turn amended by the 2004 Act. There is nothing new in this proposed section 32.

I speak of the provisions that are to be taken out, sections 13 to 15, inclusive. Now that those provisions are to be taken out there is nothing in section 32 that was not previously in the former section 32. Even from a draftsman's perspective of the Statute Book, I wonder why this is being done.

The proposed sections 32A and 32B relate to the discussion, or dispute, that was described in detail. I do not see why these issues must be dealt with in the context of the formal separation of Shannon Airport from the Dublin Airport Authority. It was mentioned that discussions are ongoing and I think all Deputies hope they will be successful. The discussions must be genuine and inclusive and must include deferred pensioners who feel they have been excluded up to now. They have a legitimate concern in the outcome of discussions.