Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact the Minister is in the Chamber to discuss this matter. The plans by Aer Lingus and its unions to plug the €780 million hole in the pension scheme have been rejected by the Pensions Board. In May, following six months of talks, the Labour Court recommended a deal involving payments from Aer Lingus and the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, totalling almost €200 million and freezing the existing benefits. The Labour Court plan involved Aer Lingus paying approximately €110 million with regard to active members of the scheme and €30 million for deferred members, in other words those who have left but not reached retirement. I understand the DAA was to pay approximately €52.75 million for active members and an undisclosed sum for deferred pensioners.

The Pensions Board told the trustees of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, that the outlined proposal to meet the minimum funding standard for the scheme was not acceptable. The IASS covers workers in Aer Lingus, the Dublin Airport Authority and the now defunct SR Technics. The proposal stated that it would be up to 70 years before the scheme would meet the funding standard. The Pensions Board rightly stated that such a lengthy derogation from the obligation to meet the funding standard would not be consistent with the objectives of the pension fund.

It is incumbent on the Minister to bring proposals to Government to deal with the issue. I do not expect him to hide behind the fact that he is a minority shareholder in Aer Lingus, which is the case. Aer Lingus is a publicly traded company and the Minister is a passive shareholder in that regard. However, he is a significant shareholder and therefore as Minister, he should have a view. The Government will have to take a position on it.

The Minister is the only shareholder and consequently the owner of the Dublin Airport Authority, which has a significant requirement to meet the funding standard as set out by the Pensions Board. If nothing else, he owes it to the workers, those who have departed the company and are deferred pensioners, and to the pensioners to provide certainty on their future. It is a considerable worry, in particular for those who have gone beyond working age and who depend on their pension. They want to know whether they will be able to sustain their standard of living and stay in their homes. It is a tremendous worry for people who are reaching the latter days of their lives and who hope to live with a degree of certainty and security to find that ongoing concern has been raised about their future. It is difficult for everyone but in particular for that cohort.

I accept that there is a pension crisis but a pension is really only a deferral of salary. People have worked for it and made their contribution. They did not get the type of pay increases they might have expected but they did expect that they would have certainty at a later stage. Many pensioners find themselves in a difficult position. Some of them had nest eggs which they hoped would assist them in conjunction with their pensions. Many of the nest eggs have been lost because of poor investments in financial institutions on which they got advice from financial advisers. All the money is gone. Some sought to help their sons and daughters to get on the property ladder but they are now in negative equity and are not in a position to give back what was borrowed on the understanding that it might be paid back. Others invested in education for their families, some of whom have now emigrated, are out of work or generally not in a position to help their parents. I am not trying to heap the impossible upon the Minister. I know he will look on the situation compassionately. However, we need Government action for this particular cohort of workers who have served the State well. It is a group that deserves the efforts of the State to try to bring some certainty and clarity to their future financial needs.

See this speech in context