Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the Minister to the House. On the face of it, this Bill would seem to be a fairly acceptable housekeeping exercise in order to streamline the operation of Shannon Airport and the various bodies charged with utilising the airport for the development of the Irish aviation industry and local region. From reading the Bill, I believe it is a Jack-of-all-trades Bill. We can see from the extensive eight-page speech the Minister gave that there is a lot contained in it. Like other Senators, I have concerns about the superannuation scheme and section 33. This section was mentioned in terms of the contact made with Senators by the deferred members committee of the IASS. I thank the committee for some of the assistance and information it provided. In the Minister's response later or on another date, perhaps he will deal with some of the issues raised by the committee and respond specifically to its concerns.

I will now deal with some of the points made by the committee, specifically in terms of section 33, which gives employers of the IASS the ability to transfer members to a new scheme without consultation. It empowers trustees to amend benefits and contributions. There is concern that this will affect 15,000 members of the scheme who, on average, have a pension of approximately €16,000. Under the terms of the Bill, the employers can direct members to transfer to a new scheme, and the trustees can determine how many are transferred.

Specifically, the areas of contention that the deferred members committee of the IASS raised in respect of section 33 concern the proposed paragraph 32A(11)(b) and subsection 32A(12). These should be read in light of the repealing of section 9 of the Aer Lingus Act 2004, which states that anyone transferring to another scheme could not have less favourable terms. It seems to the members of the committee and many others that, in three fell swoops, the Bill sets the IASS members up to be put into a new scheme with less favourable terms. Obviously, many issues arise in regard to this.

The Minister stated previously that he does not interfere in the running of private commercial companies, but he should realise there is concern in this case about the undermining of conditions for employees. The Minister's script states, "All issues concerning the IAS scheme such as the scheme's rules and provisions, the contribution rates, the benefits under the scheme, etc., are matters for the trustees of the scheme, its members and its participating employers and, of course, the Pensions Authority." He said he does not control the scheme and cannot impose or prescribe a solution for its problems. For this reason, I ask him to explain in a little more detail his position to the concerned groups who have contacted Members. It seems to them and many others from reading the section in question that it represents an attack on the rights of workers of a private company to their pension. Sinn Féin will seek to have this section deleted from the Bill on the next Stage.

Various Senators and the Minister have mentioned that the proposal is subject to ongoing discussions and that there is to be a further panel report later this month. He stated that it was important that the discussions and deliberations be allowed to proceed so a resolution can be found to this complex issue. Could any proposed changes not have been deferred until the issuing of the panel report and the finding of a resolution? Why make the provision at a sensitive time when talks are ongoing? These are just some of my concerns about the Bill.

Although the Minister spoke sensibly on section 33 in his speech, I had to outline the concerns that have been relayed to us. As I stated, we will be seeking an amendment on Committee Stage. The matter is of concern to many people.