Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wanted to respond to the political charges Senator O'Brien made to me on those two areas. With regard to what I have done, I was privileged to have been appointed to this role and I was faced with a choice about taking a decision that would have created serious and unknown consequences for the members of the scheme. Let me say what they are. I will repeat that this is based on the minimum funding standard update from the IASS actuaries in December 2013. I have been informed that the estimated coverage for deferred and active members' benefits is in the range of 24% to 31%. That is the scale of the risk that people face.

Senator Feargal Quinn articulated something that has resonated as I have grappled intensely with the issue. He said there are no easy answers to this, which is something I feel so strongly. I also know there are some answers about which I am clear on the consequences. Not supporting this process in the way the Government believes is necessary would create vast risk for the largest pension fund in our country. That is the challenge I, the Government and, collectively, we all face with regard to pension funds in our country.

With regard to specific questions about my relationship with the trustees, legal responsibility for the management of a pension fund sits with the trustees of the fund. The moment we move away from recognising that principle, we will weaken the sanction, scrutiny and responsibility necessary for people who are paid to run any pension fund. With regard to the consequences of the 2013 Act and the change in the priority order, I know how contested it is and was at the time. Are we saying that the alternative before the Act was fairer? In the event of a pension fund wind-up, the people working - the active members of the scheme - would receive much less than those who were retired. The heart of the challenge we face is how, with scarce resources available to the pension funds, competing demands are managed.

The last time I came to the House, everyone asked me about the contribution the companies are making. It is €260 million, with €190 million from Aer Lingus and €70 million from DAA. On foot of the debate here, I contacted the companies and spoke to them about the issue. This is as Members expect me to do, so that when I answer questions from them about why the companies do not put in more funding, I can say I have asked the question and pressed the companies. Each of these independent companies with its own board of directors has put in the maximum it is prepared and able to do. This is an increase compared to the position at the beginning of the process.

Let us begin with the charge that has been made that nothing has happened or that not enough has happened. The process has been going on for years. Nearly every labour body and every union has in the land has been involved and, after all that, an expert panel had to be appointed to try to chart this to where we are now, fraught with difficulty as it is. To say that not enough has happened belies the major amount of work done to get to this point. From having met individuals affected by this on many occasions, having read a huge amount of correspondence on this and having met for many hours the committee that represents individuals directly affected by this as deferred members, I know that the human cost of this is real, immense and deeply worrying for people.

I will conclude where I began. The Government believes that this process offers the best hope of securing some level of support for people in the future. I accept the worry and anger that it is not what they would want or what they hoped for but, after four years of effort and intensive engagement by many, is it is my belief that this offers the best opportunity for securing some support for people. The final stages that need to be completed offer the last and best opportunity for us all in this deeply serious matter.