Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

On the cessation of contributions and whether a legislative change is necessary to facilitate it, I still do not necessarily accept what the Minister is saying. My clear understanding of it is that, under the existing rules, the only people with power of veto are the employers. The employer actually can veto any rule changes. The idea that one has to get absolutely every other member, apart from the employer, does not fit with the rules as they stand. I refer to circumstances where one person would be obstructing the whole process. If one examines the recent rules changes that were proposed, one notes the superannuation committee of the IAS scheme, which as a role in terms of both the trustees and the rules of the scheme, was ignored in discussions on rule changes that took place recently. I understand this legislation would undermine its role even more. Ironically, the committee comprises four representatives of the active group, the deferred pensioners and pensioners, and currently elections are under way in respect of the system. When we talk about consulting people and hearing their voice, we should note this is the first time where they have had only one nomination for membership of the scheme. Such is the demoralisation that has been occurring in this regard.

I am glad the Minister accepts the point that this legislation is not necessary for airport authority workers to go into a new pension scheme. That is separate. Our concern is not about that. I, too, would contend a worse pension scheme is better than none. If the proposal were just to set up a lesser pension scheme for new staff, I might have an objection, but it would still be better than nothing. The problem is that the Minister is interfering with the arrangement for existing members of the IAS scheme.

My last point is on the pensioner group. It is not a comfort to say there is a limit to how much they can be cut and that they should not really worry about it too much. The reality is that the group has taken many income cuts. The group is the only one that paid in full for an unco-ordinated pension. Some paid over 45 years, with seven increases in the contributions. They, more than anybody, can say their paying gave them a reasonable expectation of an outcome. It is now being eroded. That there is a floor applying to the extent to which they can be cut is not really a comfort. We must be very cognisant of that.

In essence, the Minister said the ceasing of contributions is not really necessary. I have not been shown definitively that this cannot be done by a rule change. New members do not constitute a reason. Therefore, I do not believe there is any valid basis for this at all. We would be much better off leaving it out.

The Minister said he was not aware of the financial ramifications or details of the investment decisions of the fund, which is fine, but it is a matter of the public record now. Some of the information has appeared in the national press. It is of a very serious character. Would the Department be interested in equipping itself with better knowledge as to some of these decisions, which are, at best, bizarre?