Mr. Declan Carlyle:

May I speak on Deputy Murphy's comments? She posed questions to CIÉ and my colleagues, but I will respond as well. CIÉ's concern is with current staff and pensioners. Thankfully, pensioners are protected by the legislation. CIÉ's initiative in 2015 was driven by its concern around the long-term viability of the schemes and the volatility of investments, returns and so on that was putting pressure on them. As such, we agree with the Deputy on the concerns about future pension entitlements.

Since 2000, the 1994 agreement has provided more than €200 million in additional contributions to the 1951 scheme and more than €100 million to the regular wages scheme. There has been more than €200 million extra from the single matching contribution, which was judged to be a requirement in 1994. That is substantial support for the two schemes from CIÉ.

There are no strings attached to the independent legal advice within the company's reply to parliamentary questions. The letter of engagement that was agreed between the parties at the WRC is there. The only condition we required was that the report would be presented jointly at the WRC to all of the trade union groups and CIÉ. There was no other condition on the £30,000 for the initial report. That remains available.

Regarding the funding proposal that was submitted in 2013, my colleague, Mr. Ahern, referred to the signatory. At the time, that was the chairman of the 1951 scheme. As we have set out in our replies, that committee has unique powers. The legal advice provided to the trustees is that their committee is the body responsible for the funding proposal. Its chairman signed the proposal. Unfortunately, he used his wrong title but the committee, of which he is chairman, is the trustee for the purposes of the scheme.