I welcome the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Donohoe, to the House. I wish him well following his elevation to senior Ministry. You are very welcome, Minister, and I offer my congratulations on your new portfolio.
State Airports (Shannon Group) Bill 2014: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages
Before we start, can I be associated with those remarks? As spokesperson on transport matters, I wish the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, the best of luck in his new portfolio.
This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 118, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister of State may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. The Minister will deal separately with the subject matter of each related group of amendments. I have also circulated the proposed groupings in the House. Senators may speak only once on each grouping on Report Stage. The only matters that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I call on the Minister to speak on the subject matter of the amendments in group 1.
I thank all Senators for their good wishes. I am looking forward greatly to working with all Senators who are interested in the various areas for which I am responsible. I know from my time in this House that Senators are always a source of good advice and proposals on policy areas and legislation. I will always listen to what everyone has to say in respect of anything I am putting forward and I will do my best to take on board good ideas.
Group 1 covers amendments Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9,10 and 11. All are technical drafting amendments or serve to correct erroneous references. I will comment briefly on each amendment so that Senators are aware of what we are proposing to change and why.
Amendment No. 1 relates to section 4 and is a technical amendment. The word "subsequent" in the phrase "the next subsequent 21 days" in section 4 was considered redundant. This amendment deleted that word.
Amendment No. 3 relates to section 33 and is a technical amendment that corrects a reference to an earlier amendment of another Act, the Aviation Regulation Act 2001. The amending section referred to is in the State Airports Act 2004 and the reference to the latter Act should be to subsection 22(4) and not subsection 22(3). This amendment corrected that reference.
Amendment No. 8 relates to section 50, which covers authorised officers and persons. This is a technical amendment which replaces the phrase "An Garda Síochána" with "the Garda Síochána". I am advised this is the correct legal term.
Amendment No. 9 relates to section 54. This is a technical drafting amendment replacing the words "to insert" with "by inserting". This is the proper form of wording used when inserting new text into existing legislation.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to section 55. They are minor technical amendments. They reposition a misplaced "and" in section 55, previously section 54, by first deleting it and then re-inserting it in the correct place.
We have nothing in this group.
I call on the Minister to speak on the subject matter of amendments Nos. 2 and 4 in group 2.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 relate to superannuation schemes.
Amendment No. 2 refers to section 23 which deals with the superannuation schemes of the Shannon group. This is a technical amendment. When the provisions in section 34 relating to "replacement schemes" were deleted a reference in section 23(8) to a "replacement scheme" was overlooked in error and ought also to have been deleted on that occasion. This amendment made that deletion.
Amendment No. 4 relates to section 34. I know that this section attracted considerable debate and discussion in the Seanad and the Dáil. The section deals with superannuation schemes in the State airport authorities and also contains provisions to facilitate amendments, by the trustees, to the Irish airlines superannuation scheme. There were several substantial amendments made in the Dail, some of which reflect points made by Senators on earlier Stages. I will highlight these for the House.
Section 34 was restated in its entirety to provide for greater clarity. The original section 32A, which is to be inserted into the 1998 Act, was divided into two separate sections. These are now the new sections 32A and 32B. To address concerns raised in this House regarding the power provided to employers in the scheme to unilaterally withdraw their members from the IAS scheme, the provisions dealing with "replacement schemes" have been deleted. In addition, the three subsections which referenced Cork Airport in the context of new pension arrangements have been deleted. Those provisions were intended to give clarity around how any new pension arrangements in the Dublin Airport Authority would be divided between DAA employees and those of a future Cork Airport authority, if and when Cork Airport is separated from DAA. Those provisions gave rise to a certain degree of confusion and misunderstanding and for that reason they were deleted.
Senators will recall that under section 32B(1)(a) the trustees will have the power to amend the provisions of the IAS scheme to cease any further accrual of benefits under the scheme and to simultaneously cease the contribution liability of both members and employers. Another amendment to this section means the exercise of this power is now subject to a commencement order. At the request of the trustees section 32B(2) was added to make it clear that if and when they exercise their powers under section 32B(1)(a) the trustees and the IAS scheme itself will have no obligation to provide benefits under the scheme in respect of future service.
While one could argue that this is self-evident within subsection (1), we had no difficulty with providing the further clarification contained in this amendment, which also requires the trustees to act honestly and reasonably when exercising their powers under that subsection.
A further amendment was the addition of the new subsection (5) to section 32B. This subsection disapplies statutory revaluation, as provided for under section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990, from the IAS scheme in the context of the particular proposals which are the subject of current discussions among the members to resolve the difficulties with this scheme. An element of those particular proposals is the removal of the impact of statutory revaluation on preserved benefits so that the future liabilities of the scheme can be locked down. However, under this amendment, revaluation cannot be disapplied in isolation from a decision by the trustees to cease contributions and benefit accruals from subsection 1(a) of 32B - this is a prerequisite for the disapplication of revaluation. In addition, the operation of this amendment has been made subject to a separate commencement order. These safeguards will ensure that revaluation under the Pensions Act will continue as normal and until its disapplication forms part of an overall solution to the problems of the scheme. If, for any reason, it does not ultimately materialise as part of a final solution, this provision will not be commenced. However, we want to make sure there is no legislative barrier to any resolution of the IAS scheme difficulties that is agreed among the parties.
I formally congratulate the Minister, a fellow north-sider, on his appointment. I also welcome his road-to-Damascus conversion in the form of his comment that the Seanad is always a source of good advice and good proposals. I remember him saying some things to the contrary during the Seanad referendum campaign-----
He was an excellent Member of the Seanad.
-----but we will leave the past in the past. He was certainly an excellent Member of the Seanad and I am genuinely delighted about his appointment. Obviously, he has not much time to read himself into what is being proposed in this legislation. These are fundamental changes. This is the first time the State has legislated to change a private pension scheme. I debated these proposals at length with the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Varadkar. I note there have been some changes in regard to two separate commencement orders, which effectively mean that no changes to retained or existing benefits can take place without the Minister's consent. Although I have been here since 2007, between the Dáil and Seanad, I have never seen it happen that a full section of such fundamental importance to a Bill was effectively replaced. The Minister listed a number of technical amendments in group one, which address errors including drafting mistakes and mistakes by the Department. There is an issue relating to the Pensions Act and the implementation of any changes in revaluation or to retained or existing benefits, and the Minister has rightly inserted a reference to the Pensions Act. I put it to him that if he had not done that, he would have been contravention of the Pensions Act.
I made a point on Second Stage that the changes to the IAS scheme, in view of the fact that the Government is legislating for one pension scheme as part of this Bill, should not have been made until the negotiations were completed and an agreement could be reached. I pointed out to the previous Minister, Deputy Varadkar, that a full pension section is being shoehorned onto the back of this Bill. It has been proven by what the Minister has brought to the House and by the Government amendments, particularly to this section, that the first draft of this proposal that the Government brought to the House was so substantially flawed that it had to be set aside. I could take solace, although I do not, in the fact that many of these changes were brought about by the debate in this House, in the Dáil and in committee, all of which I watched.
I welcome the two separate commencement orders, but I put it to the Minister that he is effectively giving power still to the trustees, particularly under section 32B(1)(b), which provides: "The consent of the members or of a company or other employer participating in the IAS scheme or of any other person referred to in any provision of the IAS scheme shall not be required by the trustees for the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this subsection." I genuinely ask the Minister to have a look at this. Because he is new to this ministerial office - and I wish him the very best - he would bring a fresh pair of eyes to it. This is effectively saying that the trustees can do what they like, irrespective of whether agreement is reached through the discussions with what is termed the expert panel.
The Minister may or may not have noted during the course of the past few months the effect that some of the proposals the trustees brought forward will have on the deferred members, those who worked in the companies to which we are referring - Aer Lingus, SR Technics and the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA - which could result in reductions in promised defined benefit pensions of between 40% and 50% of the expected benefit. I am sure the Minister will have received correspondence from the Retired Aviation Staff Association, RASA. Based on the proposals put forward, upon the passing of this legislation, which would give powers to the trustees to do what they wish to do, the retired aviation members will face reductions, on average, of €40 to €50 per week, although they do not, in the main, have the ability to earn additional income. Sweeping powers are being given to the trustees. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that his Department has had to replace a whole subsection relating to pensions because it has not got it right. I asked the previous Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and I ask this Minister again to remove this section and introduce separate legislation should agreement be reached, or if it is not reached. I listened to what the previous Minister said about this during the debate on Committee Stage in the Dáil and he made the point that he was only putting this in place in case there is not an agreement, rather than having to recall the Dáil and the Seanad during the recess should this legislation need to be passed very quickly. I do not get the logic of that.
We are talking about 15,000 people and their families, one third of whom are retired and one third of whom are deferred pensioners, who, I note from the amendment that the Minister has introduced, do not have any say in what is happening because they do not have an employer who may move them into a scheme, as they worked for years under this scheme. The Minister probably knows much of this already; I am simply restating the position for him. Successive Governments, and in that I include previous Governments, have failed in this regard. This scheme was used as a vehicle, in many instances, to incentivise people to retire early. They were offered unco-ordinated benefits in respect of early retirement. I still have not got an answer from the trustees, nor will they have to give it to me, regarding the point that it does not appear that any additional funding was put in place to fill those holes when people were leaving the company. The company, to boost profitability, asked a lot of people to leave and gave them an incentive through the scheme - which people took in good faith, and I do not blame them for doing that - but no requisite or subsequent contribution was made. That is one of the reasons for the big hole in the scheme. Instead of trying to fix this, we are prematurely bringing through legislation, in advance of any agreement, that will remove the rights of pensioners or retired members. Many workers feel - I can understand their position - that because the scheme is unfunded, they want to get into a new scheme; they do not want to keep paying into a black hole. I understand that. If the Government is willing to do this once and if it is willing to legislate for a private pension scheme, what is to stop any Government in the future from doing likewise? It sets a dangerous precedent. I acknowledge that the previous Minister and this Minister have brought about some changes to ensure that, should the trustees come up with a proposal that involves drastically reducing members' benefits, that measure will have to come to the Minister for him to sign it.
The Minister must sign away people's pension benefits. This will mean reductions in their pensions far more drastic than any cut to the household benefits package. There will be reductions in future benefits that people were promised and the Minister must sign off on that. Has the Minister been informed correctly in that regard? The Minister has been in the job a few days and is introducing a section that will effectively bring it to his desk in future. He will be signing away the benefits for 15,000 families across the country.
I urge the Minister to remove the section in its entirety and introduce it as separate legislation if required. When he considers the confusion about Cork Airport, which the Minister mentioned, it adds to my point that the section concerning pensions benefit was ill thought out, rushed and tagged onto a Bill when it has no business being in it. It is a significant change in the benefits of retired workers and their pensions rights. It should have been introduced in a transparent way in separate legislation.
I thank Senator Darragh O'Brien for the points made. In the time in which I have been privileged to be in this role, I have spent a huge amount of time going through the legislation and understanding its impact. I am keenly aware, as is the Senator, of the consequences the measure will have on people dependent on the pension fund or who are working at the moment, and I am very much aware of the interest and concern people have about the resolution of this matter. I am also aware that we have a fund that has a deficit of just under €750 million. Senator Darragh O'Brien is aware that the issue has been exceptionally protracted and complicated. Many people have tried to resolve it over many years. Through legislation, I am trying to introduce a legal framework so that, if resolution is achieved, the resolution will have legal standing in a legal framework. I use this opportunity to urge everyone involved to reach resolution.
With regard to the changes proposed to this Bill, I ask for a degree of consistency in evaluating amendments. Points were made in the Dáil and the Seanad by colleagues about the Bill and we have done what we can to strengthen it. Where possible, we reflected the points made. That does not mean that the original Bill was flawed or is being handled in a different way. I am conscious of the fact that legislation in the area is not examined as frequently as road traffic legislation. I will put in place a framework so that if resolution is reached with regard to a fund with a deficit of €750 million, the agreement will have legal certainty. That is the objective behind the section of the Bill and I am aware of the concerns and interests people have. I am looking to put in place a framework so that we will be able to bring legal certainty and finality if any agreement is reached.
Group 3 refers to amendment No. 5, the subject matter of which is clarification that, on conviction, imprisonment is not an option in cases where the person is a body corporate for offences committed in respect of dazzling aircraft.
Amendment No. 5 is a technical amendment. As originally drafted, the section provided for a fine or a prison term for an individual or a corporate offender who, deliberately or recklessly, dazzled pilots of aircraft with laser lights. The imposition of a prison term can only apply to an individual offender. It is not possible to impose a prison term on a body corporate. The amendment, therefore, removed the reference to a prison term in respect of a corporate body. A fine of up to €250,000 is provided for an offence of this nature by a corporate body.
Group 4 deals with amendment No. 6 and removing reference to the need for consent of the Minister to approve the provision of parking facilities at an airport.
Amendment No. 6 is a technical amendment, which removed an unintended requirement that the consent of the Minister be obtained to establish a car park at an airport.
Group 5 deals with amendment No. 7, a restatement of the powers of authorised officers.
Amendment No. 7 added a new section 48 to the Bill, the purpose of which was to restate and update the powers of authorised officers at airports. The powers of authorised officers are set out in several Acts dating from 1973 to 2004. Some of the language in the earlier Acts does not reflect modern usage and the parliamentary draughtsman took the opportunity for this update. The amendment does not grant any additional powers to authorised officers. Insertion of this new section caused the subsequent sections to be renumbered.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
I propose that we give an additional five minutes so as to conclude the Bill.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I ask colleagues to consider what is being done. I appreciate the Minister's presence. I reiterate my congratulations and that of my group and I wish him well in his tenure but I could not think of a worse way of commencing it than to remove and drastically change the rights of 15,000 workers in the IASS. It is unfortunate that the Government has not during our detailed debates over the past few weeks seen fit to delete the section relating to superannuation and pension schemes. When the new Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection enacted the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2013, she provided for unilateral, sweeping changes to pension schemes, including amending the order of priority in so far as they affect retired members. Fund managers and trustees are being let off the hook.
When this legislation is passed shortly, it will be the first time in the history of the State that a Government introduced legislation to confer powers on trustees to remove members from existing schemes and reduce their benefits without their consent. This will be the first of many schemes in semi-State companies to be affected by this. This will lead to the clearing of balance sheets to sell off the stake in Aer Lingus and other commercial semi-State companies. This is a drastic change to pension rights.
Over the past few weeks, I have tabled amendments along with colleagues in Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, all of which were voted down, and I raised issues with the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar. We have tried to demonstrate to the Government parties that what they are doing in advance of an agreement to deal with the deficit in the IASS, which must be dealt with, is giving powers to the employer, though they may call it the trustee, to do what it likes.
Who privatised Aer Lingus?
It has nothing to do with privatisation.
Senator O'Brien without interruption.
It is just a question.
That has nothing to do with privatisation because there were protections in place.
The changes introduced in last year's social welfare Bill by the Labour Party Tánaiste have enabled this to happen. Senators should ask themselves if they were in Waterford, Kerry or anywhere else about this. The Government is now allowed to bring in legislation to amend a private pension scheme overnight. That means no agreement or consent is required from the members of the scheme. That is why we vociferously opposed, and will continue to oppose, these changes. It is unfortunate that many Members have walked through the lobbies to vote through these changes. This will mean retired members of pension schemes face massive reductions. They are aged 70 or 80 and they have worked their entire lives and paid into the scheme. Nobody is advocating on behalf of deferred members who face reductions of between 40% and 50% in their promised benefits. That is what Members will permit if they vote "Yes" to the passage of the Bill.
I urge the Minister to withdraw the superannuation section and I urge Government Members to look at themselves. They certainly would not like this to be done to them. They should oppose this Bill on the final Stage.
There is no fund there anyway.
I would like to turn this into a positive story, given it relates to my own town and airport, at which I worked in 1975 and 1976. I welcome the Minister, whom I trust. The pension scheme is an issue of concern to many of its members in my area as well but I trust him to deal with the issue when it arises.
This process began in November 2011 to correct the mess that had been made in Shannon Airport over the previous 15 to 20 years. I thank the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and, in particular, Mr. Brian Murphy, in the Minister's office who was a great help. The airport is a key economic driver for the west, not just the Shannon region. Deputy Dooley said we would need a €5 billion bung every year for five years to keep the scheme going. This is not true and the scaremongering must come to an end. The right thing is being done for Shannon Airport. It made a profit of €149,000 last year, despite cleaning up another mess in Shannon Development and getting rid of that agency, which was serving no function. The industrial estate, along with the airport, is beginning to recover. Between 600 and 800 jobs are currently being advertised on the industrial estate and I have no doubt that in seven or eight years there will up to 8,000 jobs available because we have made the right decision.
Shannon will be set free from the clutches of the Dublin Airport Authority and the messing of Fianna Fáil. It is over.
Hear, hear.
That is incisive.
I would like to object in the strongest terms to this Bill. I welcome the new Minister and I regret he has come to the legislation at such a late stage because it is controversial. We have had a great deal of discussion on it. It is unprecedented for a Government to pass legislation to strip away the private pension rights of employees, to which they have made contributions over many years. The Government has stripped away the rights of people who took early retirement from the airports and SR Technics on the basis of pension commitments made to them at the time, without consultation. The legislation provides incredible powers to the trustees to undermine people's benefits. There are difficulties in Aer Lingus and a solution needs to be reached to fund the pension scheme, which we all want. Talks are under way to achieve that but this legislation has been railroaded through at the same time, which demonstrates incredible bad faith on the part of the Government in the context of reaching a fair resolution to the issue.
The OECD recommended that where there are single insolvencies, namely, where the pension scheme is insolvent but the employer is not, such schemes should not be allowed to be closed unless the employer ensures it is 90% funded. We tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to insert the recommendation in the Bill to at least give some protection to the existing members and deferred members that will be affected but that was refused.
Government Members should be aware of what is happening here and of the unprecedented nature of what is being done to people's private pension rights. This is not right. We have fought the Bill every step of the way because we think it is wrong that people who paid for entitlements on the basis of a commitment from their employer should have them stripped away at the last minute without consultation. I urge Government Members to think about that and about whether they are prepared to stand over that when they vote on the Bill.
I was assured five minutes would be sufficient to finish this Stage but we have been going for ten minutes. I propose that the debate be extended by a further five minutes.
I would like to give a special welcome to the Minister, my former student. Members can blame me if some of his policies turn out to be wrong. I wish him every success. One of major things I have done since I entered the House is send him letters of congratulations as he advanced in his political career. We are all proud of him.
National airport bodies are an anomaly. Airports in future will compete and, as Senator Mulcahy said, Shannon Airport will have its freedom. I wish Cork Airport would be given the same facility under section 1 and the Minister will see when he reads the debate on the Bill that I proposed this to the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar. Cork Airport is two thirds bigger than Shannon Airport but nobody knows what to do with the new terminal there, which cost €68 million. It was unnecessary and it is a white elephant. It is also a millstone around the neck of the airport.
Page 9, line 23 states the airports shall conduct their business at all times in a cost effective manner. The Commission for Aviation Regulation has recommended that charges at Dublin Airport should reduce by 4.8% a year for the next five years.
They were overcharged to pay for Terminal 2 and we lost tourism as a result. The Department has a vital role in monitoring the efficiency of the airports. Cork Airport has an unnecessary terminal but good labour productivity. Shannon Airport had a low level of passengers per square metre of terminal and had low labour productivity. Such is the task that faces us. Airlines and airports compete and this is going in the right direction. While I wish Cork Airport had got its freedom, the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar, left it open for Cork Airport to become an independent airport at some stage. If it were in the UK it would compete and would be in the top 20 airports there as a separate, independent business. I welcome what the Minister is doing for Shannon Airport and I wish he had done the same for Cork Airport. He must monitor the efficiency of airports because, from being a State monopoly, they have inherited a very high cost base.
While I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, he is new to the job and has come in at the very last Stage. I urge him to examine the legislation and listen to the pleas of my colleagues, Senators Darragh O'Brien and Power, who have actively fought against this aspect of the Bill in particular. The Minister has the opportunity, through the commencement order, not to give effect to the most contentious provisions of the Bill. I urge him to consider whether this is right and to think about the thousands of people on the north side of Dublin, the Minister's area, and County Meath who will be severely affected by it. The commencement order gives the Minister an opportunity to take further control of the Bill and re-examine it. Undoubtedly the Bill will pass now.
I welcome the Bill. I am delighted it has passed through the House. I compliment the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar. The Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has had it in his brief for only a week. I remind the Members opposite that the whole world does not revolve around Dublin. As Senator Mulcahy summed it up, Shannon Airport is free and we have seen a profit coming out of it for the first time ever. I remind the Members opposite that the pension deficit of €750 million was created under their Government. They should not go around scaremongering, saying that if there is nothing in the fund there is nothing to be paid. We must get it sorted and I hope the negotiations go well.
The Senator obviously has no clue what he is talking about.
I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister.
Give me a break.
The contributions of the Senators have reflected some of the issues in the Bill. I will pick up on the points Senators O'Neill and Mulcahy made on the objectives of the Bill regarding changes to Shannon Airport and Shannon development. Between 2006 and 2012, Shannon Airport lost two thirds of its passengers. That was the situation when we drafted the Bill. Last year, 1.4 million people went through Shannon Airport, compared to 1.39 million the previous year, showing at least stability with some signs of growth. So far this year, figures have increased each month, with a predicted growth of 10% for the year. This is all about trying to create an environment where two organisations have separate jobs, each with its own financial discipline and strategic objectives. With the leadership in place in the bodies, I am confident, as Senators Mulcahy and O'Neill said, that Shannon Airport will become a hub for more passengers and jobs as a result of what is happening here. The individuals involved will grasp the opportunities the Bill will provide and we will see further employment, passengers and growth in Shannon Airport.
When I walked in here with the Bill, one of my first thoughts was that Senator Barrett taught me transport economics for a full year. I have no doubt he will remind me of that on many occasions here in the near future. I am very much aware of the Senator's points on charging, statistics and the future of Cork Airport. As he knows, we have a policy on the aviation sector out for public consultation. When the public consultation is complete, the draft will return to me and we will publish it later in the year. Perhaps there may be an opportunity in this House to examine this aviation policy and consider the Senator's points in detail.
Regarding Senators' points on the pensions issue, whenever I sign an order I will do so conscious of the responsibilities this office confers upon me. I am acutely aware of the families of the people who are very concerned about their futures and the expectations they have regarding the pensions they thought they would have. The problem has been brewing for years, and Senator Darragh O'Brien acknowledged that it was brewing under previous Governments in which his party participated.
And the Minister's.
This is a pension deficit of €750 million. We are trying to create a legal framework within which resolution can be finally reached. I will not reduce such a serious and complicated problem that will affect so many people to the level of political catcalls across the floor of the Seanad. I am conscious of what the Bill will do, of how long the problem has been going on and the difficulty it is creating for people. After years of other Governments examining the issue and lamenting the risk, we are trying to create a framework within which, if the parties concerned can reach agreement, resolution can be achieved. I am aware of people's worries. I am also aware that the pension fund has a deficit of €750 million. I emphasise my awareness of the role of the commencement orders in this regard.
The Bill has been long debated. A Senator said there was a perception that the Bill had been railroaded through. Given the debate I have seen and the points made, the Bill appears to have benefitted from going through the legislative process and the Government hearing what different people have to say and trying to strengthen it, where possible. I acknowledge the work of the former Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and all the officials in trying to deal with many complicated issues, provide the best framework possible for the future of Shannon Airport and region and provide all the opportunities they need. I also acknowledge their work on the other issue, of which I am very much aware, of the worries people have, trying to provide a framework within which the parties involved can see the resolution of the issue.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Mac Conghail, Fiach.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Níl
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.