Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 April 2018
23. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the status of the ongoing pensions issue at CIÉ involving approximately 16,700 members; and the steps he is taking to address the matter. [18008/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI apologise for being late. What is the status of the ongoing pensions issue at CIÉ group involving approximately 16,700 members and what steps has the Minister taken to address this issue, which has been brought to his attention on a number of occasions? My colleague, Deputy O'Dea, brought the matter to the Minister's attention in November. The Minister was to revert back to him. I do not think he did so. We had a discussion on this issue at a recent meeting of an Oireachtas committee. What steps is the Minister taking to address this issue?
I thank Deputy Troy for the question. It relates to a matter which is exercising the minds of a large number of active pensioners at CIÉ. He is right to raise this in the House, even though it is not one with which I am very directly involved. However, I think the information that will come out of this debate will be useful to many of those people involved in the scheme. Issues in relation to CIÉ ’s pension scheme are primarily a matter for the CIÉ Group, their employees and the trustees of the pension scheme. The schemes are also subject to independent regulation by the Pensions Authority.
The employees of CIÉ are provided pension benefits on retirement from one of two defined benefit schemes; the regular wages scheme and the superannuation scheme. In common with the overwhelming majority of defined benefit schemes, they are facing significant challenges in maintaining solvency to ensure prudent provision is made to fund the cost of future pensions in a low interest rate environment. As I have pointed out previously in this House and elsewhere, CIÉ is on record at the Workplace Relations Commission as making two significant commitments.
First, CIÉ has committed that it will not impose any change that it proposes without the agreement of the active members of both schemes. Second, CIÉ commits that it will continue to contribute to both schemes in accordance with the rules of the schemes. These commitments are important and reassuring.
I have previously outlined the challenges faced in addressing the solvency of the schemes and the process under way to address the deficit. The process involves detailed discussion between CIÉ and employee representatives, facilitated by the WRC.
Deputies will be aware that members of one of the CIÉ pension schemes have highlighted particular concerns. These were communicated to public representatives and raised in the House, with the Committee of Public Accounts and with the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport. I understand that CIÉ issued a comprehensive response to these queries on 22 February.
As the Deputy knows, CIÉ also appeared before the joint committee on 7 March to discuss the matter, explain its position and set out the facts. Following that meeting, CIÉ has written to the committee formally conveying the company's willingness to pursue two measures that could help support constructive engagement between the company and the unions regarding the pensions issue.
In its letter CIÉ has made it clear that it is willing to fund independent advice for the trade union group. This would help determine matters of fact, whether through a process facilitated by the WRC, or alternatively through some other mutually agreeable process.
CIÉ has also indicated to the joint committee its willingness to participate in a process, chaired by a suitable independent professional person or body appointed by CIÉ and the trade union group, TUG, with a view to determining past matters currently at issue. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a mutually agreeable body, CIÉ proposed that the Director General of the WRC could be requested by the parties to appoint such an independent body.
The Minister is right: it is primarily a matter of concern for the CIÉ group. However, since the amalgamation of the five schemes into two by way of primary legislation in 1994, that responsibility has been there on a statutory basis in respect of how these schemes must be funded. As the sole shareholder in the CIÉ group, the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that the CIÉ group adheres to the legislation as agreed by the Houses of the Oireachtas in 1994. When the groups were before the Oireachtas committee earlier this year, SIPTU representatives produced a document which, it is alleged, came from the CIÉ group. They themselves suspected in 2009 that CIÉ had a minimum legal requirement to fund its two pension schemes by an additional €11 million but that it may also be legally necessary to fund its two pension schemes by an additional €26 million. Has the Minister ever found out whether this document originated or was brought about by CIÉ itself and whether it compiled the document? Furthermore, the Minister said today that the CIÉ group indicated that it was prepared to give funding for independent legal advice. From engaging with representatives of this pension scheme, that is not my understanding.
It is certainly mine. My understanding is that CIÉ is prepared to fund that, provided it is independent advice, but I will check the matter with CIÉ after Question Time because there is obviously a complete and fundamental difference of opinion there.
The question the Deputy asked before that was whether I will investigate the governance of two CIÉ pension schemes. Members of one of the CIÉ pension schemes have highlighted particular concerns and made allegations which they have communicated to public representatives, who have raised them in the House, with the Committee of Public Accounts and with the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport. CIÉ is willing to engage in an independently chaired process with the unions to determine past matters that are currently at issue regarding the pensions situation. As the Deputy knows, CIÉ made that proposal to the joint Oireachtas committee. It would likely be a very technical exercise, so a mutually acceptable professional person would be needed to chair it. If the two sides are unable to find a suitably independent chair, CIÉ is prepared for the WRC to nominate a suitable person to investigate that. I am sure the unions will agree to this. I hope they will.
I would appreciate if the Minister could ascertain which of us is right and which of us is wrong because my understanding, from talking with various representatives, is that the offer on the table is one to get independent advice from a company that CIÉ wishes the trade unions to use. That would not be independent advice, to my mind. The representatives of the pensioners wish to seek independent legal advice to be able to get their own legal opinion, which CIÉ would fund. On obtaining that independent legal advice, they then wish to have an independent body with the relevant expertise in pensions to adjudicate on behalf of both themselves and the CIÉ group. If that is something that is on offer today and that the Minister is confirming the CIÉ group has relayed to him, that would be a welcome development.
Yes, without getting involved in the detail of any dispute between CIÉ and the workforce, which I will not do. Obviously, I want to see this resolved amicably and in a mature way. Any offer of an independent expert advice to the trades unions to help them clarify facts regarding the pensions issues should be welcomed. That offer, as far as I know and am told, is still on the table, and I hope that all parties in this dispute will get together and do this. I also hope that the funding proposals to the Pensions Authority go ahead to get the schemes back on track. We have a very serious situation here, which the Deputy acknowledges, for the workforce and I have a great sympathy for them. I will do anything I can without intervening to encourage them to get back to the WRC and discuss these matters, which of course affect their future and the future of other people. It is certainly my duty, not so much as a Minister but as a public representative, to see that their fears are assuaged. They have the legitimate fears of anyone who is in such a pensions trap, and it is not unique to CIÉ. I was even looking at some of the pension funds and the comparison between the performance here and the funding gap in CIÉ. It is not unusual and it is one they share with a large section of the workforce.
