Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will try not to be repetitive because Deputy Clare Daly has covered some of my concerns arising from the Minister's last comments. Regarding a comment made by Deputy Michael McNamara, lest there be any doubt, I do not have an objection to the passage of the Bill, but, like him, I do have an objection to section 34 which I do not believe is necessary or wise at a time when we do not have clarity on a final resolution of this protracted issue.

The Minister said he had met somebody coming out from a match who was indicative of a certain cohort of people who would like to have the opportunity not to contribute to the pension fund. It was the wish of almost all parties in the House that we try to encourage people to remain within pension funds to cater for a time after work; I would not have thought, therefore, that we would be trying to facilitate their exit from or non-participation in a scheme. Those people in society who have private health insurance often wonder what the benefit is. I do not want to speak for the individual whom the Minister met coming out from the match, but the people I meet who find it difficult to continue to make contributions are looking at it in terms of what is in it for them. If they were to see a more proactive approach by the Government to try to resolve the issues with the pension fund, they would be minded to remain within the fray, so to speak, of a private pension scheme. Those under the age of 30 years and some under 40 often do not see the benefit of contributing to a pension scheme, but as we all progress through life, we start to focus on the benefits. I would not like to think we are legislating to facilitate somebody's exit from a scheme but rather that we are trying to find a way to encourage him or her in that regard.

The Minister went on to say the provisions set out facilitated the 1,200 people at Dublin and Shannon who did not have a pension scheme. I do not object in principle to addressing that issue and take Deputy Clare Daly's point that the Minister may not need legislation to provide for those who do not currently benefit from a pension scheme. If he were to bring forward an amendment to that effect, I would support the section.

The essence of my amendment in opposing the section is based on the serious impact on the lifestyles of those still employed within the respective companies, those who have deferred pensions and those who have retired. I set out in the early stages what I saw as the reduction in the pension entitlements of those individuals that in the late 1960s transferred across from the Civil Service to the airport company and in doing so identified the figures for the Minister. One individual is on a pension of €24,000, another on €16,000. I gave these figures as examples to address the question of the loss to those who believed they had a natural entitlement to the same terms and conditions. It also indicates the poor pension entitlements of many of the people who have since retired. We can see that their pensions are relatively low and there is provision for further reductions based on what may emanate from the talks.

It is ludicrous to expect us to support the provisions in this legislation - I refer only to the provisions relating to the current pension fund, not the people who are not facilitated by having a pension scheme - in advance of knowing what the final deal is. We are not serving our constituents well if we seek to provide what might be referred to as enabling legislation when potentially we are close to a decision being taken or a resolution being brought forward. I urge the Minister to withdraw his amendment, to accept our proposal to delete the section from the Bill, to allow every other provision to proceed and to be prepared to come back with what might even be largely the same legislation which we could debate in the fullness of time when we have all of the facts.