Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I love these Standing Orders; they are great. This gets to the heart of the issues concerning the sharing of the pain and the impact on pensioners' living standards. The problem is that we, particularly Government Deputies, have put forward the idea that there is a problem with the scheme as if it were somehow preordained or beyond our control. The issues we have raised have not been dealt with and there has been no answer to a question as to why there is a problem with the funding of the scheme. On the one hand, the problems relate to the antics of the company which allows people to leave. Those concerned invested in the pension scheme when they left but new employees got to join a different pension scheme, a defined contribution scheme. If no new staff are coming in and replenishing the funds in the IAS scheme, there is clearly an actuarial problem. The decision in this regard was made when the company was in State ownership. The issues and problems with the trustees have been mentioned. This absolutely must be investigated.

There has been talk about the vote at the EGM in terms of Aer Lingus. However, I do not believe we have focused sufficiently on the DAA side at all. Many of the Aer Lingus staff who voted on the system were not members of the pension scheme at all. They were members of SIPTU but not of the IAS scheme, yet existing pensioners and deferred pensioners were denied a voice in the same process. Despite this, the Government has sought to rely on the expert panel report to justify some of the cuts being made. These amendments are seeking to change the order to protect and minimise the impact of the cuts on the various pensioner groups. They are a necessity if pensioners' living standards are to be protected.

There has not been enough discussion on the DAA side of the equation. The DAA is getting half the amount that Aer Lingus members are getting in terms of an investment to solve the problem with the scheme. However, the DAA also has significant legal problems with the way in which it put forward the idea on the Aer Rianta supplemental superannuation scheme, which it believed it would be able to wind up as part of the proposal. Now, however, it has been told it actually has to freeze it. The point I am trying to make is that there is no acceptance of the expert panel's proposal and the solutions put forward by any of the members' unions in the DAA at the moment. Therefore, there is not an agreement, leaving aside the points on the existing pensioner groups who did not have a voice in the first place.

Let me put this in context. What we are talking about doing is protecting people from draconian cuts and changing the order. Let me deal with an e-mail I was sent by a constituent. The constituent was responding to information I got for him from the Minister for Finance on income tax paid and how that income tax affects various groups. The point he was making is that the tax burden is markedly benign as income rises over €150,000. He referred to a group of people who earn over €11 billion between them, suggesting no income group earning above €100,000, up to multiple millions of euro, pays more than an additional 4.7% in the euro. As income rises, therefore, we have a very regressive tax scheme. The constituent made the point that he worked for Aer Lingus for 40 years and that when the Government was the sole or majority shareholder and employer, the Minister's contribution to the defined benefit underfunding crisis was actually to damage further the fund with a levy that reduces it and pensioners' entitlements accordingly. Obviously, the vote at the EGM that took place today was to try to reduce that even further. Pensioners were excluded from the process and the communication roadshow that took place on the schemes. They were completely and utterly excluded from the expert panel.

No moneys have been put in to defray the costs from them. They are the only group, in that €175 million of their pension capital is being taken from them. This represents a six-week cut in their income from the start of next year. Of course, they have no right to bring these issues to the Labour Court or anywhere else. Therefore, they need us here to protect them and to bring in measures that prevent their income and living standards being dropped below a certain level. That is why we tabled these aspects of the amendments. They are critically important if we are not merely to be giving sympathy to, and shedding crocodile tears for, those who are in that boat. It is within our power to deal with this and cushion the blow, and we should do so. Otherwise, it is completely reprehensible. There is a misunderstanding that deferred pensioners are persons who went off, built a career in a different employment and were able to get pension entitlements through that; they are not. This group, and some of the staff involved, gave decades of service to Aer Lingus and are being harder hit as a result, and they need measures put in place.

See this speech in context