Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to focus my comments and add to what Deputy Clare Daly has been saying. I am particularly shocked by the position in which the deferred members find themselves. I do not understand how what currently exists could have been allowed to develop under any fair system of judgment or decision-making process. I can only conclude that the deferred members have been treated as they have because they are the weakest members of the pension scheme. The Minister will be aware that in this instance deferred pensions are being paid to people who, as Deputy Clare Daly pointed out, decided to take voluntary redundancy at a stage of their lives when it seemed suitable to do so. They got a deal which seemed fair at the time and were provided with advice by both of the companies involved to the effect that they would receive a lump sum, a small income stream and, on reaching the requisite age, a guaranteed pension. Apparently, a large amount of the latter is now going to be denied to them.

I have spoken to members of the pension scheme and some of the leaders of the action group about this matter. They are realistic in that they understand the reasons it may be necessary for them to take a cut, they are of the view that said cut is discriminatory in that it is greater and more damaging than those being visited upon others. Let us move away from the argument about cuts to pensions for a moment and concentrate on the case of the deferred members. As the Minister and everyone else knows, those with deferred pensions are weakest of all those involved. There is nothing they can do because they cannot withdraw their labour anymore. They walked out into a limbo with a guarantee that was based on a certain amount of goodwill and they now feel totally and utterly betrayed because they are the weak link in this tripartite pension scheme. The Minister should reconsider his position. He should not stand aloof and say that it is not his place to interfere in the business of a private company, namely, Aer Lingus, in circumstances where employees or former employees of the DAA are involved. The Minister has brought forward a Bill which specifically changes the pensions upon with the latter obtained their pensions. In my opinion, he cannot have it both ways.

The position is even worse than I have described. Wherever the deferred members turn, they hit a brick wall. The trade unions have told them to go and jump in a lake because they cannot represent them because they are no longer employees. They have not received a positive response from the Pensions Ombudsman, the Pensions Authority or the Labour Court. Aer Lingus and the DAA have behaved in an unscrupulous and disgraceful manner and left them in a very difficult position whereby they could face near penury. They are completely disillusioned as a result of the actions of the expert panel and the trustees. The Departments of Social Protection and Transport, Tourism and Sport are washing their hands of the matter and are refusing to accept - in any meaningful way - representations.

What is proposed here is a very cynical manoeuvre. The Minister should think again and actively intervene. He must understand the feeling of real injustice among the members of the pension scheme. Let us consider what is happening to them. They have stated that 50% to 60% of their benefits could be removed as a result of the enactment of the Bill. I accept that it is a once-off situation but they also state that their employer can move them from one pension scheme to another. In that way they will not realise the benefits that will accrue to current members. This is because they will be moved into a pension scheme that has no value in terms of increasing in the future or the others who are currently there will be moved into another pension scheme or will be the beneficiaries of a separate scheme, which will give them a huge advantage.

They are only looking for one thing. They are only looking for fair play and a certain degree of honour, which they were promised in the first place. I simply cannot understand it. It prompts a serious question which all employees in the private and public sectors must now face: how can anyone take voluntary redundancy in the future if the agreement is not worth the paper on which it is written? The people concerned accepted a voluntary redundancy deal. They gave up not only their employment but also their prospects of future employment on this basis. They now find that the requirements of their employers are so ruthlessly implemented that they can no longer depend on them to honour the original agreement, although there may be a case for a reduction or dilution.

Let us compare their position with that of those who are continuing in the same pensions scheme. The Act breaks the honourable link that was in place. I appeal to the Minister to recognise this. Why is a difference being made between one and another, if not simply to kick them in the teeth because they are vulnerable? It seems the company is taking on the people concerned because they have absolutely no way of fighting back. What will happen, as sure as night follows day, is that this issue will end up in the courts. The Minister will be aware that an action group has been set up by the people concerned who are desperate and frustrated and they will take him and others to the courts. This is unnecessary; it is discriminatory. I am unsure of what the merits of the case are, but certainly it is very unfair. Approximately 5,000 people are involved in the exercise, in other words, a large number feel unjustly treated. I appeal to the Minister to at least intervene or else repeal or delete section 33 which is the offensive part.

See this speech in context