Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----but apart from that, the Minister has said that he did not think it would be appropriate for him to be here. That is a ridiculous statement to make, given that the Minister is in charge, the pensions are on a statutory footing and he has a legal obligation to ensure they are upheld. Mr. Dermot O'Leary referred to the 16,000 people who will be dependent on CIÉ pension schemes. Any collapse of that fund would be far greater than the Waterford Crystal debacle, which affected some 1,500 people as opposed to 16,000 people. This puts into context the sheer scale and magnitude of what we are dealing with here. It is the importance of the matter.

In its opening statement, SIPTU referred to the 2009 document. I took a quick glance at it and the section on possible solutions allowed for property contingent assets. Nine years ago it was suggested that contingent assets were a possible solution in the 2013 funding proposals submitted to the Pensions Authority. Will the CIÉ witnesses clarify if it made provisions for the use of such contingent assets with regard to the risk reserve for both schemes? I understand this was allowable by the Pensions Authority.

Mr. Gill has said that he could not confirm whether or not that document existed, or that he does not recollect ever having read it. Will Mr. Carlyle confirm if he has had sight of that document or if he is aware of the document? From the clarification we have received, I understand it is a small enough document. It was small but very significant. I find it a little strange that having a week's notice and having been aware that the issue has been raised over a matter of months, the two CIÉ representatives would come to the committee and say they had no knowledge of the document or have not done some research in advance of the meeting.

Everyone, from the committee's perspective, is clear that all parties have previously sought and are still seeking independent legal advice. Given the evasiveness of the Minister and the lack of knowledge - to be fair, the witnesses - of the documents we are discussing, I believe it is all the more important that we have that independent legal advice to get an independent perspective on matters and to have independent answers to the questions that have been posed by the workers' representatives. If nothing else comes from the committee meeting today, that should be it. He can hide all he wants but I do not believe that we should allow the Minister off the hook. Perhaps we can get a seconder here today for this committee to call on the Minister to hold an independent investigation into this debacle.

The National Bus and Rail Union, NBRU has said that if CIÉ contributed up to the maximum threshold for both schemes there would be no problem today, or at the very least it would just be a lower deficit. Will the witnesses confirm this and expand on the point?

With regard to the CIÉ 2013 new funding plan, the unions have said there was no engagement, or very little engagement, with them. Can the witnesses guarantee, in front of this committee today, that the unions will be at the table and there will be engagement? Can that guarantee be given categorically? As with the independent legal advice, there is a reluctance to do this. What does management fear from independent legal advice? I cannot think of anybody who would be against a person wanting to get a clear and independent view. What is the fear around having union involvement and negotiations at the table? The witnesses have admitted that there is bad feeling, and it is perfectly understandable. What is the fear to date in the context of refusing to acknowledge free independent advice?

Turning to the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, the TSSA, in their opening statement the witnesses said that the claims of the 2014 funding plan were not legally sound. Will the representatives from the TSSA expand on this?