Mr. Declan Carlyle:

I shall start by referring the Deputy to the replies to the parliamentary questions that were tabled by CIÉ employees, points Nos. 2 and 4, which deal with exactly what happened in 1994, where benefit improvements were provided as well as the benefits to CIÉ at the time, and the mechanism for setting out the future funding of the schemes was agreed. That agreement was provided for in statutory instruments that were signed in 2000 and that were retrospective to 1994. We all agree that the statutory agreements have not changed since that date. They provide information on how CIÉ is required to fund these schemes. The statutory instruments have not changed.

In terms of what happened in 2009, I am familiar with the document, particularly if it is the one I think it is. I have not seen a copy of it this morning. In 2009, volumes of documentation and position papers were put to the CIÉ board by the management team. All of the documentation has been supplied to the worker directors, as requested by them, in terms of 1994, 2009 and 2013, so CIÉ is not hiding from anything.

I ask people to cast their minds back to 2009. It was a time when CIÉ's passenger revenue and subventions were in decline and the country was in crisis. The position paper, if it is the one that I understand it to be, was a position put to the board on its obligations under the statutory instruments to pay 3.6 times and 2.7 times employee contributions. That was the obligation of CIÉ and it considered whether it could afford to pay 3.6 times and 2.7 times employee contributions. After that there were various conversations and submissions on what CIÉ would do.

In terms of the initial actuarial 2008 recommendation for 4.6 times and 3.3 times the employee contributions, the recommendation was based on the assumptions that prevailed in 2008 such as pay increases in the schemes and a pension increase for pensioners. At that stage, the board was considering cutting pay for actives at work and it had no intention of granting pension increases. Indeed, the State was considering cutting pensions for civil servants. The board reflected that situation and decided that CIÉ would not pay pension awards and increases. Subsequently, the actuary certified the effect of the required funding, which has been supplied in the documentation provided here in the replies to parliamentary questions. Last June, it was also supplied to the trade union group at the Workplace Relations Commission.

The funding level that CIÉ is required to put into the scheme is based on the actuarial advice to pay 2.8 times and 2.3 times the employee contributions. That has been funded since that time.