Ar aghaidh anois go dtí an tríú Saincheist Tráthúil in ainmneacha na dTeachtaí Seán Sherlock agus Duncan Smith: to discuss the non-payment of pension increases due to retired An Post workers. As the Deputies are sharing time, they have two minutes each.

I congratulate the Minister of State on his elevation and new appointment.

Deputy Sherlock and I are here 12 months after bringing this issue up previously regarding the treatment of pensioners in An Post. It is always topical and it has come to our attention again, given developments in pay increases for An Post workers announced in recent months and other issues. What is rooted in all of this is the exceptionalism with which pensioners in An Post are being treated. This year, the CWU reached a two-year pay agreement with An Post that provided for an 8% increase, paid to workers in three phases, which is most welcome. However, only 2% of the 1 January 2024 increase will be pensionable for current workers and the extent to which the 2025 will be pensionable is uncertain. Why the pensioners are angry is that there is absolutely no news about whether or when the minimal increases in pensionable pay will be reflected in their own pensions. Why are they angry? They are angry because section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 provided guarantees that civil servants transferring to An Post would continue to have their pensions calculated in accordance with civil service rules. This is not happening. In a report to the High Court, Vodafone Ireland Limited v . Farrell & Ors, Mr. Paul Kenny, the former Pensions Ombudsman, stated:

My understanding based on my experience is that ... pension increases in the civil service were regarded as, and were in practice, "automatic". That is to say, a Minister has never exercised his or her discretion in any way other than to grant increases in line with any salary increases.

An Post has repudiated such pay parity increases since 2008. Again, why the exceptionalism? There is a statutory obligation regarding mandatory increases in preserved pensions outlined in section 33 of the Pensions Act 1990, to revalue preserved pensions by the change in CPI, subject to a cap of 4%. The Minister for Social Protection has exempted the An Post main superannuation scheme from these obligations. Why is the Minister exempting An Post from its obligations when An Post increases pensions by less than a percentage point of the regulations?

First, I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Lawless, on his appointment. I am sure his relations in Mitchelstown, Baile an Mhistéalaigh, will be very proud of his elevation.

They are indeed.

I will quote for the record the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who replied to a Topical Issue on this subject when Deputy Duncan Smith and I raised it 12 months ago:

on 9 March 2023, An Post wrote to the Department seeking consent to the second phase of their current pay agreement which provides for a 2% increase in pay from 1 January 2023. In addition to this, on foot of a recent Labour Court decision, An Post also wrote to the Department on 9 March seeking approval to make increases to pensions in payment and deferred pensions of a 5% increase from 1 January 2022 and a 1% increase from 1 July 2023.

[...]

Circular 16/2021 states that pension approval requests should be submitted for approval well in advance of any decision to implement changes and acknowledgement of the necessary process that must be completed. In order to ensure that pension increases are not unduly delayed, it should be recognised that the time taken for the pension approval process is necessary to ensure that robust governance procedures are in place.

We have not seen any progress on this issue. I hope the Minister of State will not give exactly the same reply we received from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, 12 months ago. I hope the issue has moved on and that progress is being made.

I thank both Deputies for their kind wishes. I appreciate them. In response to Deputy Sherlock, John, Billy and Auntie Alice O'Brien and all the Mitchelstown clan are very proud indeed of my appointment. I thank him for acknowledging them.

I welcome the opportunity to outline the position on this matter. I have not had sight of the response the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, gave so I will outline my position, subject to revisiting it in due course. I look forward to engaging with the Deputies on the matter as it progresses.

Under section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, with the concurrence of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, approves any superannuation schemes submitted by An Post. The operation of the schemes is a matter between the management of An Post, staff representatives and the trustees of the schemes. The 1983 Act requires that, for civil servants who transferred to An Post on vesting day, 1 January 1984, An Post’s pension scheme must provide not less favourable conditions than those to which the members of staff were entitled immediately before the vesting day. Section 46 sets a minimum level of parity between the An Post scheme and the scheme that applied to staff members of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, as it was on the day before vesting day. Section 46 does not provide that the conditions in the An Post scheme must continue to match any subsequent improvements in pension conditions for the award of pension increases in the Civil Service. It was and is intended to be a transitional provision to ensure that transferring employees were no worse off on vesting day than they were immediately before the transfer. It does not give rise to an entitlement to pension increases other than those granted in accordance with the An Post superannuation scheme rules. Prior to vesting day, any increases to pensions in payment were discretionary. They were awarded at the discretion of the Minister for Finance. The rules of the scheme accurately reflect the pre-vesting day discretionary nature of pension increases in the public sector. The pension increase rule has remained unaltered since the commencement of the scheme.

An Post wrote to the Department on 3 April 2024 with an updated consent request seeking approval to increase pensions payments for 80 members of the An Post superannuation scheme who are aligned to the principal officer grade in the Civil Service. The 80 members in this cohort were former civil servants and are referred to collectively as the pre-1984 pensioners. An Post also wrote to the Department on 21 June 2024, seeking approval to increase pensions in payment for members of the An Post superannuation scheme by 2% per annum, with effect from 1 January 2024. In accordance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies, An Post must seek ministerial approval for all proposals to increase pensions and deferred pensions for members of the An Post superannuation scheme. As per Circular 16/2021, all such proposals require NewERA’s views, as well as a business case setting out the strategic, policy and financial rationale for the proposed increase. Proposals should be submitted well in advance of any decision to implement changes, in acknowledgement of the necessary processes that must be completed and to ensure that pension increases are not unduly delayed. The time taken for the pension approval process is necessary to ensure that robust governance procedures are in place.

Following receipt of both proposals from An Post, the standard process is being followed. NewERA’s views and assessment are being sought as part of that consideration and the Ministers will then consider those proposals. There has been ongoing engagement with An Post on the matter. This is the same procedure that must be followed for any State body. It is not possible, therefore, at this point, to set out the specific timeframe within which the decision-making process will be concluded. However, I note the points made by the two Deputies and the understandable great interest and urgency of members of those schemes in it being expedited.

This is a paraphrasing of the same reply we received 12 months ago, in essence, using NewERA and saying it is kicking the tyres on this 12 months later. Does it take 12 months for NewERA to kick the tyres on such a proposal? The members of the scheme want and are entitled to answers. We want certainty from the Government on whether this will be paid.

The response, which is very similar to the response received 12 months ago, mentions section 46 setting a minimum level of parity between the An Post scheme and the scheme that applied to staff members as it stood on the day and that it does not provide that the conditions in the An Post scheme "must continue to match any subsequent improvements in pension conditions". However, as the former pensions ombudsman stated, and as I stated in my opening contribution, based on his experience, pension increases are in practice automatic and regarded as such by the Minister. This is the disconnect.

Last week, our news media were emblazoned with headlines that An Post revenue and profits increased in 2023. The CEO is very excited about the next five years and the growth of the company. That is fantastic and we are all delighted with that and want to see it, because all of us on every side of this House fall over ourselves to support An Post as a vital community organisation throughout the State, a lifeblood of the State. However, when we do so we must remember that An Post was built on these workers and pensioners. They are the company and they are not being treated fairly.

I did not even have time to bring up the class D PRSI contribution anomaly that exists for these pensioners. An Post has benefited from favourable employer PRSI contribution rates, whereas the pensioners are unable to claim a State pension because of their class D PRSI contributions. As I said in my first contribution, there is a whole degree of exceptionalism here that is militating against the An Post pensioners and it needs to resolved.

I have listened with interest to the Members’ responses. I appreciate and understand the degree of frustration the Deputies and those they represent feel. I will take this away, read into it further and revert to them.

The one point I will make is that I am told An Post engaged with the Department in April 2024 and again in June 2024 seeking approval for these increases. On that level, I am confused as to how this can be the same position as it was 12 months ago, considering there has been significant progress, or certainly engagement, during that time. An Post only asked for this in April and June 2024 so I do not know how it can be the same position as it was 12 months ago, but I am open to clarification on how that may have come about.

I am happy to clarify. The reply from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, stated exactly the same thing in 2023.

April and June 2024 are after 2023, not to state the obvious, so there has obviously been some progress in that time at least.

The workers have not been paid.

They have not been paid, but their paymaster has now engaged with the Department, which seems to be progress. They cannot be paid without someone asking for them to be paid and someone else approving that. There is a workflow and some of the steps, I am told, were only taken in April and June 2024.

It is an undue delay, to be fair, by any administrative standards.

That is since June 2024, when the question was received from An Post. I hear the Members' points. I am not abreast of the issue of the class D PRSI contributions, but perhaps the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, could advise on that issue, which was raised by Deputy Duncan Smith.

I understand there are frustrations and I share the Deputies' admiration of the post offices, An Post and the service they provide at every level. I will certainly read into this matter further and I hope to be of further assistance to the Deputies.

I, too, congratulate my colleague, Deputy Lawless, on his promotion to the position of Minister of State in the Departments of Transport and the Environment, Climate and Communications. I have no doubt this will be the first of many times he will be in the House for Topical Issues.

What a sentence.

Not a bad start.

Two out of four ain't bad.

Tá an t-ádh dearg ort inniu. You are lucky today because there are just three Topical Issues.

There were meant to be four.

So I understand.

Two out of three is even better.

Two out of three ain't bad.

Beidh sos beag againn.