Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The response, which is very similar to the response received 12 months ago, mentions section 46 setting a minimum level of parity between the An Post scheme and the scheme that applied to staff members as it stood on the day and that it does not provide that the conditions in the An Post scheme "must continue to match any subsequent improvements in pension conditions". However, as the former pensions ombudsman stated, and as I stated in my opening contribution, based on his experience, pension increases are in practice automatic and regarded as such by the Minister. This is the disconnect.

Last week, our news media were emblazoned with headlines that An Post revenue and profits increased in 2023. The CEO is very excited about the next five years and the growth of the company. That is fantastic and we are all delighted with that and want to see it, because all of us on every side of this House fall over ourselves to support An Post as a vital community organisation throughout the State, a lifeblood of the State. However, when we do so we must remember that An Post was built on these workers and pensioners. They are the company and they are not being treated fairly.

I did not even have time to bring up the class D PRSI contribution anomaly that exists for these pensioners. An Post has benefited from favourable employer PRSI contribution rates, whereas the pensioners are unable to claim a State pension because of their class D PRSI contributions. As I said in my first contribution, there is a whole degree of exceptionalism here that is militating against the An Post pensioners and it needs to resolved.

See this speech in context