Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I wish to address a couple of points mentioned.

It is welcome that the Minister agrees that the trustees' proposal was disproportionate in its effect on deferred and retired members. His statement, following my question, that he is not aware of any other private pensions scheme that actually had its own legislation to remove pension entitlements that members legally held is indicative of the truth. He is admitting this as the Minister responsible for transport. Let us examine the matter from the outside. In many instances, he has actually said he cannot become involved in the commercial running of Aer Lingus as a company. I happen to agree with him. The State is a minority shareholder in the airline, yet the Government and the Department are getting as actively involved as is humanly possible in the retirement fund and pensions scheme in that they are introducing legislation, particularly the new section 32A, of a kind that has never been introduced before in respect of a private pensions scheme. I find it really difficult to understand that there is nothing sinister in this. This is not a personal slight on the Minister. The publication of the expert panel's report is but one week away. While we all hope agreement will be reached, does the Minister not realise the problem is that what the Government is teeing up is such that it does not really matter whether there is agreement? Should this legislation be passed into law, agreement will not be required and it will not matter. For the first time ever, legislation is being brought forward by a Government which will mean that agreement will not be required regarding a private company and a private pensions scheme.

It would make much more sense to withdraw this section of the Bill, insert another section or draft other legislation if, I hope, there is agreement. Can one imagine what the discussions will be like next week should this Bill be passed? It will effectively mean that what a swathe of members - probably 10,000 of the 15,000 members - say does not really matter. The Minister referred to the SIPTU vote of existing scheme members who do not want to make further payments into the scheme. Of course, I can understand this because the scheme has effectively been wound down in the past three years because everyone knew this day would come. All the employees and active members of the pension scheme see is their money going into a big black hole because nobody has taken charge of dealing with the deficit. If I am making a contribution, I will look after my own best interests. I am saying the Minister is giving them a vehicle to transfer out and have a new scheme with no deficit. He and his Department are dividing and conquering. They are making distinctions between the different types of member and telling the active members working in the company that there is a much better way forward for them and that they can enter into a new scheme. The Minister constantly refers to employers being allowed to bring their members into a new scheme. What about the two thirds of members of this scheme, particularly the deferred members, who do not have an employer? They are not being listened to. I want agreement on how we move forward. The active, deferred and retired members all want agreement.
The Minister spoke about the Pensions Authority winding down the scheme which both he and the Minister for Social Protection facilitated through the passage of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act. They have brought it about through a very clinical, step by step approach because the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act deals with the priority order in order that those who are already retired do not get priority in the payment of annuities. The position has changed completely; there has been a massive change in private pensions legislation. The irony is that the only changes the Government seems to make to pensions relate to private pensions and that there is no move to fund public pensions properly; this is not lost on many members of this pension scheme. We are still paying public pensions for politicians like us and civil and public servants from current revenues. We have not yet moved towards funding a separate pensions scheme. The only changes being made are to private pension schemes. With the passage of this Bill and the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill, there will be wholesale changes in what were State and semi-State companies, Government-sponsored pension schemes and defined benefit schemes, as we are seeing already. The passage of this Bill will means that if they so wish, employers will start to run their schemes down. As the Minister knows, even though the trustees are a separate legal entity under law, they are heavily influenced by the employer who is the major contributor. He or she plays a very influential role in the operation of the pensions scheme.
I cannot accept the bona fidesof the Government in bringing forward this section of the Bill. If it really wanted agreement from the parties involved and stakeholders, it would not hold back on this section. If there is agreement, I put it to the Minister that it does not matter whether the Houses are in recess. We recalled the Seanad last year, which means that both Houses could be recalled to deal with this issue which is very important nationally. I agree with what he says about potential industrial relations issues and strikes in the future. We all want agreement, but he is effectively telling people that it does not really matter what they think and say or whether they agree because he, the trustees and the Government have all the cards and he is going to go ahead with the changes anyway. I strongly oppose this section on that basis and ask the Minister once again to reconsider removing it. I put it to him that it is premature at this stage.