Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing my time with Deputy Róisín Shortall.

I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak about the Bill. Like many Deputies and the Minister, I have received many letters and e-mails specifically on the implications of section 34 on the Irish aviation (general employees) superannuation scheme. Delegations have also approached me about the issue. There is grave concern and anxiety among many of my constituents about the effects of this section, particularly on the deferred members of the superannuation scheme.

I welcome the majority of provisions included in the Bill which create Shannon Group. This will involve creating an umbrella group with responsibility for Shannon Airport, the lands around it and the companies operating there. This follows the report of the Shannon aviation business development task force of November 2012 and the separation of the Shannon and Dublin airport authorities. People who represent Dublin have no problem with Cork Airport also receiving its independence or being included in any name. The three international airports and also the airport at Knock are vital for the future development of the country.

Section 6 permits the creation of the new Shannon Group and section 10 outlines the functions. It has to be said, of course, that Shannon Airport and the mid-west generally have suffered in the economic crash since 2008, with a huge decline in passenger numbers at the airport itself. Thankfully, I note that its most recent annual report indicates a slight recovery, with an increase in passenger numbers. Hopefully, the provisions of the Bill before us will build on this improvement.

I also note that some restructuring has already taken place at Shannon, with the Shannon Airport Authority plc having taken over the management in the last year and a half. The chairperson, Ms Rose Hynes, has indicated in the 2013 annual report that there is a positive future outlook for Shannon Airport based on the improvements that have taken place in passenger numbers and in business at the airport recently.

An over-reliance on military stopovers in the past ten or 12 years provided short-term gains but it was unsustainable. We remember the US military stopovers and also remember constantly questioning the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, about these matters when he was in the seat opposite. Ireland's role in US military stopovers at Shannon Airport was, on balance, damaging to the reputation of our country. Over the years, I have strongly supported the distinguished activist, Mr. Roger Cole, and the Peace and Neutrality Alliance organisation in their brave stand against the militarisation of Shannon Airport.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Company, SFADCO, was a very successful and innovative company in terms of the economic development of the country. I note the new CEO, Mr. Neil Pakey, is developing new structures and improving the management of Shannon Airport and its associated companies. There has been a recent increase in the number of routes from Shannon Airport, including the provision of a range of new routes by Ryanair, and Aer Lingus is also extending its services from Shannon Airport, with new routes to Bristol and Malaga and increases in the Manchester and Birmingham routes. United Airways is also planning to increase capacity.

Shannon Airport was always a standard bearer in the avionics and aviation engineering area, as well as in aircraft leasing and financing. Again, there is huge potential to develop these industries further in parallel with developments in the Dublin Airport region. Therefore, I welcome Part 8, which provides for the final step in giving effect to the Article XI (Alternative A) of the Aircraft Protocol to the Cape Town Convention, as the Minister told us. This means we will now replicate the 60-day waiting period for creditors which is the general modus operandiin the United States.

I particularly welcome the inclusion of the "dazzling" offence in section 44. The Minister said there were 281 reports of lasers being shone at aircraft in 2013, with 60% of these taking place in Irish airspace. As transport spokesperson for the Labour Party, I remember this was a complaint we received in the vicinity of Dublin Airport on a number of occasions. It is a very serious crime and a potential disaster for crews and passengers, so it is good it is included here at long last. In addition, I note traffic management powers have been given to the airports, and these are also long overdue.

Part 9 contains amendments to update laws concerning tour operators. However, the Minister seemed to be saying that we are not able to defend the 1982 Act and, in other words, EU-based travel operators can come here and operate very freely without licence, based on the reasoned opinion the Minister received from Europe. In his response, the Minister might indicate how Irish customers can be protected in regard to foreign travel companies and foreign airlines, which are so extensively used here.

I am very concerned about the contents of the Bill which relate to the IASS. The new section 32 of the Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Act 1998, as amended, seems to give large powers to trustees and companies and, at the same time, remove powers from members and deferred members. Deferred members of the IASS are particularly concerned about this provision, as the Minister knows. I understand there are close to 15,000 people involved, with approximately a third being active current members, a third being pensioners and a third being deferred pensioners. The Minister told us earlier that 69% of the members work or worked for Aer Lingus, 26% for the DAA-SAA and 5% for SR Technics.

The current pension concerns relate directly to the trauma suffered by workers at SR Technics when it closed a number of years ago. The closure was totally unnecessary and stupid. It was carried out by Sheik Mohammed Bin Maktoum of the United Arab Emirates, who simply wanted to move the large aviation engineering centre at Dublin and Zurich to the Middle East as a successor industry for a time when the oil begins to run out. As a result, many of our workers lost their jobs and had to retrain, and they are now desperately concerned about their pension entitlements.

In March this year the IASS scheme had a maximum funding standard deficit of €769 million. The impact of the Pensions Act 1990 meant that residual funds available for active and deferred members would be only 5% of the expected benefits. There has also been the recent controversy in regard to the Aer Lingus CEO, Mr. Mueller. I welcomed the Government position, which followed my own call in regard to the approval of a large pay and bonus package for the Aer Lingus CEO at a time when its pension fund continues to be in crisis.

There are grave concerns at the treatment of the IASS fund in the event of full privatisation. The Minister might give his view as to whether workers who gave 30 to 40 years service in the semi-States are now being unfairly targeted. Does the present fund meet pension regulations standards? What solution is the Minister coming forward with to protect the fund?

I note the recently published report of the expert panel on the resolution of the industrial relations issues in the IASS dispute makes key recommendations. The expert panel based those recommendations on earlier opinions of the Labour Court but, significantly, it has recommended increased contributions by both Aer Lingus and the DAA to the IASS pension fund. In the case of Aer Lingus, the panel has recommended that it would put in a total of €146.7 million for active employees and, in the case of the DAA, the panel recommends an increased contribution of €57.3 million and a further €0.85 million from the DAA to deal with the resolution and wind-up of the Aer Rianta supplemental superannuation scheme, ARSSS. Significantly, the panel's report mentions the situation regarding deferred members. The report notes that meetings took place and recommends that the companies should amend the manner in which funding for their former staff who are deferred members of the IASS is to be made available so as to alleviate as much of the impact of the IASS trustee proposal as is possible.

The Minister maintained earlier today that section 34 was designed to facilitate in a pragmatic manner the implementation of the expert panel's report, and he also said he would amend some of the provisions of section 34. However, he continues to support new pension scheme provision by the DAA and SAA which he says will not replicate the so-called inflexibilities of the IASS. To many of my constituents, this just reinforces the grave and ongoing concern among deferred pensioners, especially about the future of their pension entitlements and the lack of any consultation with them on any future pension changes, which section 34 seems to copperfasten. The question is why the Minister has come forward with section 34. He said it was to facilitate the response of the expert panel but what it has done is create huge anxiety and concern among people who have given lengthy service to our airline industry in Dublin and who now feel desperately threatened.

The Minister should withdraw section 34. Given a failure to do this, the Bill has to be opposed, despite its positive aspects for Shannon Airport and other areas of our aviation administration. I ask the Minister to rethink and, in his response, indicate clearly how the mess in this area can be cleared up. He is the responsible Minister.

See this speech in context