Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for coming into the House today, following my request on the Order of Business. I appreciate the Minister is busy, but I am sure he appreciates the gravity of what signing the two commencement orders means to thousands of people, who were members of the scheme.

Unfortunately the time allocation of four minutes will not be sufficient to address the points I wish to raise. I am very disappointed that the Minister signed the commencement orders in advance of the social welfare Bill being completed in the Dáil and before it will come to the Seanad. My colleagues and I in both the Fianna Fáil and other parties had tabled amendments, which I am sure he and the Minister for Social Protection would have seen, which if accepted would actually negate some of the additional powers he gave to trustees in the State Airports (Shannon Group) Act 2014. From my viewpoint it feels that the legs have been taken from under us.

The Minister has referred on a number of occasions to the significant amount of €260 million being put into the scheme by the employer. However, there remains a €500 million shortfall in the €769 million deficit following the €260 million the employers have apparently put into the scheme. This means the employers have been able to wipe off €500 million.

What the Minister and his predecessor did in conjunction with the then Minister for Social Protection, in the Shannon Airport scheme to give the trustee the unilateral power to reduce benefits in the scheme to active, deferred and retired members and this has now allowed the trustees and the companies effectively to write off the under-funded amount of €500 million. The irony is that the long service deferred members in particular will be hit by reductions of almost 50% and some by reduction of more than 50%. The retired members, people who have worked in the company for decades will lose six weeks pay, which is more than 10% of their income and on top of that they will carry the ongoing risk of that scheme. They must also pay an additional levy of 2.53% on their benefit because the current Government took €28 million from that under-funded scheme to pay the pension levy.

They are now paying an additional levy of 2.53% on their benefits because the Government took €28 million from that under-funded scheme to pay the pension levy. Ironically, it took €11 million very recently.

Four minutes is not enough to set out what is being done here. As I said to the Minister when we debated the State Airports (Shannon Group) Bill 2014 in this House, this is the first time in the history of the State that a Minister and a Government have legislated to reduce benefits in a specific private pension scheme. That is what they have done. Why have they done it? To add insult to further injury, who is going to vote on this? The shareholders in Aer Lingus will vote on it at an extraordinary general meeting on 10 December next and the members of the scheme will not have a say.

The Minister mentioned that industrial action has been threatened. There was a big divvy-up between the unions and the Government on this. They knew that the retired members did not have the threat of industrial action at their fingertips and that those who had left the company were no longer employed. That is why they have taken the brunt of the cuts. I accept that active members have taken a hit and are going into an inferior scheme. It is unfortunate that we are talking about this because it is being done now. Shareholders will be able to vote but members will not.

I would like to refer to something I have noticed in a number of the Minister's speeches. I do not mean to be personal when I mention that whoever is writing these speeches for the Minister keeps suggesting that the expert panel was engaging with the various groups. The panel did not engage with the different groups. It engaged with the employers and the unions, but it did not engage with the retired members through the Retired Aviation Staff Association and it did not engage in any meaningful way with the deferred members. It is a lie to suggest that the panel engaged with those who have been left carrying the can for years of under-funding and mistakes by successive employers and Governments. This scheme was used as a vehicle to get people out of the company.

As I have been given just four minutes, I do not even have enough time to go into the difference between the unco-ordinated members and the co-ordinated members. People who have paid more money into this scheme are losing as much as those who have paid less. Along with my colleague in the Dáil, Deputy O'Dea, I intend to table amendments to the Social Welfare Bill to deal with this matter, which has been coming down the track for two and half years.

By doing what he did yesterday, the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has given every single employer in this country a roadmap to wind down defined benefit schemes. This started when the Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, changed the priority order in the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013. We knew the Government was not going to put €760 million into the scheme. Of course that was not going to happen. People want a fair breakdown and level of cuts across the different categories. They do not think a solvent employer should be allowed to wind down an insolvent scheme. The Tánaiste brought in a single insolvency arrangement. That is what was done. Two years ago, profitable companies sitting on millions of euro in cash were given a roadmap showing them how to wipe off €500 million. This company's share price will go through the roof on 10 December when its shareholders vote to cut old people's pensions and to take the legs from under the deferred and existing members.

I thank the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, for being here today. It is nothing personal. I am disgusted about what happened yesterday. Right through this, no one has listened. Is the Minister aware that the Tánaiste sat down with members of this scheme last week and said that a way forward might be found? I believe she sent a Labour Party backbencher to the Minister yesterday to ask him not to sign the commencement orders. Did the Cabinet even have a detailed discussion on the signing of those orders? Does the Minister realise what is being done by virtue of his actions?