Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Bill has a misleading Title. It should be about the merger of a number of bodies related to Shannon Airport to streamline its development. This is what the Title would lead one to believe, but instead, the Bill is largely an attack on workers and their pension status. While it deals with the merger of these bodies to become the Shannon Group, this is not what has been a matter of grave concern to the members of the Irish Aviation Superannuation Scheme, IASS, since the legislation was published.

Section 34 provides for the companies of the IASS to unilaterally transfer members into schemes with different terms and conditions. The legislation permits the Minister to determine the acceptability of this new scheme as proposed by the companies. It does not allow such capacity to the members themselves. The new scheme can set the time and conditions of a member's retirement and another scheme can be proposed to amend the new scheme or revoke it as long as the Minister approves. The Houses of the Oireachtas will have a say on the acceptability of any new scheme but, again, the members will not. This is an utterly unacceptable section and has no place in this Bill. We oppose this section generally but we also oppose its inclusion in a Bill which is supposed to deal with something else.

The major changes to pension schemes provided for in section 34 should have been the subject of separate legislation to the Shannon merger. Had that been the case, the legislation would have provided an opportunity to properly probe, discuss and even amend the relevant legislation. Sticking this section onto the Shannon merger Bill is a sinister and completely unacceptable ploy. It is unacceptable because, first, it bears no relation to the substance of the legislation; second, it will make sweeping changes to pension schemes; and third, the pension scheme to which it relates is the subject of an industrial relations process.

I have had amendments refused many times because they were deemed not to be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. The idea that one can call a Bill one thing and then use it to push through something entirely separate is wrong and an insult to the House and the legislative process. If the Minister wished to make these changes, he should have set out to do so in legislation specifically directed at amending the IASS. That is not the Minister's role, and we would also oppose that, but at least it would be a little more transparent. The IASS has 15,000 members, including workers from Aer Lingus and the DAA and some formerly of SR Technics. There are approximately 5,000 active members, 5,000 deferred members and 5,000 retired members. These people are rightly worried about this Bill. It gives powers to employers which change completely how private pensions operate in this State.

Section 34 must also be considered in the context of the Bill being drafted, published and debated in the Seanad prior to the completion and publication of the deliberations of the expert panel on the IASS. The expert panel has produced its report but it had not done so prior to the last time the Bill was debated in the Seanad on 12 June. We did not know what its recommendations or findings would be, yet the legislation sets down a pathway for companies to remove themselves from the scheme by unilateral transfer of members to new schemes. This Bill pre-empted a panel, which, though flawed, was set up to find a way to solve the pensions problem in Aer Lingus and the DAA. The Minister's actions have muddied the waters.

The panel was established to examine complex issues that remained unresolved following Labour Court recommendations in 2013 as well as proposals by the IASS trustee issued at the beginning of this year. The expert panel has made recommendations and these will be considered by workers in the scheme and the trustees.

It is right and proper that these matters be decided on democratically by the workers involved. They should not be decided on by the Minister or legislation he puts before the House while deliberations are still ongoing. On Committee Stage in the Seanad the Minister stated he could not impose or prescribe a solution to the pensions crisis in the IASS, yet through this Bill he seems to offer an opportunity for companies to remove themselves from the IASS and potentially avoid their responsibilities under it.

The Aer Lingus and DAA pension is a defined benefit pension. We have all learned the very serious flaws of such pension schemes which are dependent on the performance of the market and which should never have been allowed to promise the payments they did. Aer Lingus and DAA staff benefited from these very attractive pension schemes. In the Seanad it was said they were even used to encourage some workers to retire early. Workers who are facing retirement in the next few years could face large reductions in their benefits. As I stated, the expert panel was flawed, especially in the lack of full consideration of the case of retired and deferred members of the IASS. They have nobody to speak up for them in this process and have had to band together to fight. The deferred members committee was recently allowed a meeting with the expert panel but only four days before the publication of its report and it had little or no impact. If the Bill is passed, why would the companies involved have any impetus to treat the expert panel or the workers' concerns with any urgency or seriousness? They will not. The Bill removes or threatens the pension entitlements of thousands of people.

The Minister is legislating for the winding down of the IASS by the trustees completely on their own terms. These are profitable, solvent companies that have serious deficits in terms of what they owe their workers in pensions. The Government is a shareholder in this private company. It could be argued that it is legislating in its own financial interests in the case of a private pension fund and the entitlements of private employees. This very dangerous practice by it sets a very worrying precedent.

The Bill will repeal a section of the Aer Lingus Act 2004 which provides that members transferred out of the scheme should not have less favourable terms. If this section is passed, the Bill will not be in the best interests of the workers or their pensions. There is something very suspicious about how the Bill has been brought before the House and the provisions it makes to undermine the IASS. As my colleague, Senator David Cullinane said, it stinks. Sinn Féin will seek to amend it to delete all changes to the IASS and its superannuation schemes. Without their removal, we cannot and will not support the Bill.

See this speech in context