Apologies have been received from Senator Noonan and Deputy Brennan. Today's meeting is split into two sessions and has been convened for the committee's scrutiny of matters relating to An Post, particularly its pensions. For the first session, I welcome the following witnesses: Mr. Paul Moreland and Mr. John Hearn from Post Office Pensioners United.

The format of the meeting is such that I will invite the witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which will be limited to five minutes. The statements will be followed by questions from members of the committee. The committee may publish the opening statements and presentations on its website.

Before we move to today's discussion, I would like to clarify some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Moreland to deliver his opening statement.

Go raibh míle maith agaibh, a Chathaoirligh agus members of the committee. I am a retired An Post worker and I speak on behalf of Post Office Pensioners United, a volunteer-led group representing retired An Post workers.

I want to begin with the human reality of this issue because this is not simply about policy or pension formulas - it is about elderly people's lives. The people affected are retired workers who gave decades of loyal service to An Post and contributed every week to a pension scheme we believed would protect us in retirement. We trusted the assurance given to us that our pensions were secure, protected by legislation and backed by commitments made when An Post was established. Sadly, many of us feel today that that trust has been broken.

The continuation of the pension accord is causing real hardship. These are not small adjustments on paper; these are older people worrying about paying everyday bills, heating their homes, meeting medical costs and trying to maintain dignity in retirement. At our age, there is no opportunity to make up these losses and no second chance to rebuild income. While increases in the State pension are often presented as supports for older citizens, many An Post pensioners do not qualify for the State pension, so those increases bring no benefit to us. That makes this hardship even more acute.

What makes this especially difficult to accept is that we believed pension protections were guaranteed under section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, alongside commitments given by Ministers Wilson and Mitchell at that time. How have these protections apparently been set aside? How were the assurances we relied on not upheld when the pension accord was introduced? How can the company, the unions and the pension trustees justify continuing with an arrangement that is causing such hardship to vulnerable and early pensioners, when in the words of Mr. Mulvey, chairperson of one post, the An Post pension fund "is in rude good health". He told this committee that in October 2024.

Perhaps most importantly, how was this done without giving pensioners a vote or any direct say in decisions that profoundly affect our lives? This is not just a pension issue; it is an issue of trust - trust in promises made, trust in representation and trust in the protections this House put in place for ordinary workers. We are not asking for any special treatment; we are asking for fairness and clarity. We are asking this committee to help us to get answers to the legitimate questions we have been raising for quite some time. Behind every pension figure is a person, a retired worker, someone who contributed over a lifetime, someone who believed they would be secure and someone who now simply wants dignity, fairness and justice in retirement.

We have given the committee a statement which my colleague, Mr. Hearn, will be happy to go through with members or to take questions on. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

I thank Mr. Moreland. We will now have a questions and answers session. Members will have approximately five minutes.

For the sake of transparency, I would like to put on record that I met Mr. Moreland in February to get a briefing on the issues outlined today. I commend the witnesses on their tenacity and commitment to this battle, on which they have been going uphill for a long time. I thought I was across all of this until I read their statements. Two aspects of Mr. Moreland's statement particularly struck me. First, it is startling to hear that "At our age, there is no opportunity to make up these losses, no second chance to rebuild income." Second, it is sad that it has to be laid out in black and white that "This is not just a pension issue; it is an issue of trust - trust in promises made, trust in representation and trust in the protections this House put in place for ordinary workers."

His honesty is to be commended.

Mr. Moreland's points are convincing to somebody who does not have any skin in the game. I was taken by the level of detail that he put to me and other Members of the Houses during his endeavours over recent months. Is there anybody in government or the Civil Service who has been able to counter the points made? If they have, what reasons have they given for this not progressing?

Any of the times we asked questions of Members of the Oireachtas, we get the answer back that the whole thing was transitional. An Post gives us the same answer. We are at a loss. The provisions of the 1983 Act clearly state that there will be no less favourable pension terms. I am not aware, as the members know better than me, of any amendments to section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act. Maybe they happened and we do not know about them. However, we believe that the people elected to these Houses make the laws of the land and are the only people who can change them, not An Post and not its group of unions. We are at a loss as to why we are not protected by what is in the Act. It is like Ronseal. It either does what it says on the tin, or it does not.

What is the biggest stumbling block to achieving parity and how is it best addressed? If the witnesses were to give any direction to the committee, how do we assist them moving forward?

My colleague Mr. Hearn will take that.

In the brief we gave to the committee, we stated that someone needed to appoint an independent person who could look at all the issues and make recommendations. In 2005, there was a problem with Sustaining Progress and An Post pleaded an inability to pay. There were two years of strikes and threatened strikes and nine references to the Labour Court. In the end, it was only when An Post was threatened with an all-out strike at Christmas that the basic pay issue was resolved. At that time, the then Minister, Noel Dempsey, was faced with a demand from the pensioners to have the Sustaining Progress pensions increased, but he could not because pay parity was the provision in the pension scheme. He could not give an increase to pensioners before the staff got it, so they were all without pension increases for that time. Now, An Post is taking the statements that Noel Dempsey made and saying that they mean pensioners cannot have pay parity because he said that they could not have their increases before that.

It is this sort of misrepresentation all of the time. The legislation is clear. The piece of paper received by people transferred into An Post like Mr. Moreland specifically said that section 46 gave comprehensive protection of the pension entitlements of transferred staff. Yet, every time we are looking for that, which Noel Dempsey clarified in 2005, we are told that has changed or whatever. In 2013, An Post told the Ministers that the changes being made would not affect the serving staff, yet most of the pensions are falling behind. It is not a question for me - I have so many different pensions - but the poor postmen who walked or cycled the streets of Ireland day in and day out are suffering. They have a small pension. Due to the decisions taken by the Government in 1984, they did not pay PRSI contributions. They have not got the increases that State pensioners have got. They have not got all of these double weeks and all that. They are falling behind significantly. Even when they retire, the lump sum they get has been reduced because of the changes.

I am sorry - have I misled the Deputy?

No, Mr. Hearn is okay. I am just conscious that we are over time. We can come back to this.

I thank the witnesses for attending. Like Deputy Byrne, I commend them on an excellent campaign. They have met a number of the members of this committee, and I found their briefing to be helpful and informative. They have obviously put a huge amount of work into advancing what is a serious issue for them and the group of people they represent. The key issue is that retired workers were promised pension parity with their Civil Service colleagues but have not got it. I will first examine the role of An Post. From the information the witnesses have, does An Post have the financial means to rectify the 7% need?

I think it has. If it had to recognise the liabilities inherent in pay parity and bring things up to date, there would probably be a deficit in the pension scheme. However, the normal practice is that that deficit would be resolved over a period of ten years. That is what happened in the past. From a pure pension fund point of view, it should not be a significant issue. You would quantify the deficit and then produce a plan to reduce it over ten years. The issue then is whether An Post as a company can afford to make normal contributions into the fund and the additional contributions that would be necessary to address the deficit. I am an accountant, in case the Deputy did not know. My judgment is that it will have a problem if it continues the way it is going. I have analysed the accounts back to 2012 in this context. An Post has been making substantial losses on services it is not obliged to provide. We do not know precisely what they are, but it looks as if they are parcel services. The reason they are unprofitable is because you have to pay for Saturday and Sunday deliveries and the like. An Post pulled out of the parcel service in the past. It could not make it pay. That was in 2009. It has to face up to an issue. Can it bring this service into profitability, which would be fine, or is it something that it just inherently cannot provide? What I think is important is that, according to An Post's own accounts, the ordinary letter service, through which it delivers letters for the Deputy, me and whoever else, is profitable.

I have a couple more questions and only two minutes left.

I will leave it there. It is possible but you have got to have goodwill, and you might have to tell some people to get lost and tell others to pay a proper price.

Mr. Hearn mentioned parcels. I was struck by this in our conversation. It is another area where online business is once again disrupting traditional and legacy businesses without any penalty. Postal services have been disrupted by the fact that people do not use the post as much any more because of electronic communication. However, we then see An Post making decisions to meet the needs of parcel deliveries, which is an online service. Online services profit the most from that.

I want to return to the ministerial approval. In 2017 and 2019, An Post increased pension payments without seeking ministerial approval. It seems to me that it is a decision for An Post. Have the witnesses raised with An Post that it can make these adjustments without ministerial sign-off? Has An Post said anything to them about that?

I have raised it with communications and finance. There was an authorisation issued by the Minister for Communications in 1989. As far as I can see, that has not been revoked. As a result of freedom of information, FOI, requests, I have emails from both Departments saying that they cannot produce any evidence that it has been revoked.

That is the important question.

Could Mr. Hearn briefly sketch out for us the age profile, the needs and the situation of the members involved in this dispute. He referenced them briefly in the opening statement but perhaps he could give us a little more information.

A lot of our members are elderly people. They are older than us - and we are elderly to some degree ourselves - and they are struggling. A postman's pension is not great. It is not much more than the State pension. Thank God, successive Governments keep giving increases to State pensioners. If the State pension increases continue at the current rate, the An Post pension will fall way behind. When I was a young fellow, which is not today nor yesterday, I went into the Civil Service for a permanent and pensionable job. I thought I was setting myself up for where I am now. I was not thinking about pensions, even when all of this was being told to me in 1983. The last thing on my mind was a pension.

If I could make one point through the Chair. We now have a situation in An Post where we have a two-tier pension scheme. Someone who retires on 31 December 2024 gets a lump sum and a pension in perpetuity which is less than others, even with the same amount of service. If I started on the same day as that person but my retirement date was 3 January 2025, my lump sum would be greater than the person who retired on New Year's Eve and my pension would be greater because of the mechanics of the pension accord. It is a kind of sleight of hand. They brought the figure up and said everybody was getting 100% but every time an increase comes, that 100% is reduced. I was part of a union in 2013 and we were the only ones that voted against this pension accord.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. We really appreciate it. How many pre-1984 members would there be?

At a rough guess, it is about 4,500 or 5,000.

How many post-1984 members are there?

It is 6,000, less the number I just gave the Deputy. There are around 6,000 pensioners in total, plus 1,500 widows and the like. That is the total cohort and I would say at this stage, 75% to 80% of them are pre-1984.

So, there are 6,000 in total and around 4,500 are pre-1984.

Yes.

I want to get this clear in my head. The witnesses mentioned earlier that there is a certain percentage of An Post retired staff who do not qualify for a State pension. If someone is pre-1984, does he or she get the State pension and the An Post pension or just the An Post pension?

Just the An Post pension.

Unless the person had worked previously, before starting in An Post. Then he or she would be entitled to something from the State.

The decision was made to exempt An Post from PRSI-----

So, post-1984, if someone retires, he or she will get the State pension plus the An Post pension. Is that correct?

No, post-1995 that applies.

Post-1995-----

Someone like me who started on 1 January in 1984 would still be exempt from PRSI. It was only rectified in 1995.

Those who joined An Post post-1995 would be in receipt-----

They are paying the A stamp. We all paid the D stamp.

They would be eligible for an old-age pension plus whatever the An Post pension comes to. Is that correct?

No.

In addition to-----

What would happen is that the An Post pension would be reduced by the amount of the State pension. They would end up with two pensions. The State pension and a very small An Post pension. One of the issues which might come out from a detailed investigation is that many of the people who are actually paying contributions will get such a small pension that it does not make sense for them to be paying into it.

Would that policy be inconsistent with other organisations around the country?

That policy would be the same as all of the public pensions.

I know there are different PRSI elements depending on whether one is pre-1984 or pre-1995, but what percentage of their salary would An Post employees be paying into the pension scheme? I know it is a defined benefit scheme, but what percentage of their salary are they paying?

Very few are paying. It was a non-contributory scheme. The only thing they pay in is for widow's and children's protection, which is around 1.5%.

Post-1995, is it the same thing?

I left An Post a long time ago but I think that around 2004, employees started paying something like 8%. Before that, they were not paying anything.

Those pre-1984 and pre-1995 members would not have paid anything towards a pension.

No.

We will have representatives from the Department and An Post before us later today in our second session. Is there anything specific the witnesses would like this committee to ask them?

They were party to the guarantees. They actually gave the Minister for communications assurances that changes they were making in 2013 would not apply to the existing staff. That is written into the 2012 version of the pension scheme. Why are they applying these reductions to those people? That is probably the key issue.

That is fine. I have one last question. Mention was made in the opening statement of a potential loss of €100 million over four years. I ask Mr. Hearn to talk us through that. In his statement he said that published regulatory accounts for the last four years disclose that An Post has lost over €100 million providing services to domestic customers that it is not obliged to provide. I ask the witnesses to talk us through that.

We go back to 2011 when the Department or the Minister was transposing the 2008 postal directive. When I was at ComReg, An Post was very reluctant to disclose a breakdown of information on where its money is coming from. The Minister actually insisted that An Post produce and publish detailed accounts for every service. Every year since the 2011 Act was enacted, An Post has actually produced and published very detailed accounts that give chapter and verse on where it is making money, how it has calculated that and so on. The company does that but it always delays it. It produces its main accounts in April but the last time it published the detailed accounts was in November 2025. There is a big delay. I have analysed them right back to 2012 and on the non-obliged services, the company has lost over €25 million for each of the last four years. What I cannot say-----

Sorry, but we need to move on.

I welcome Mr. Hearn and Mr. Moreland. That could be a line of questioning that needs to be followed up in the next session.

I want to put on record that I am a contractor to An Post. I am a postmaster myself. Postmastering has been in the family, between me and my late mother, since 1972. I have worked with the men and women, the staff members, of An Post all of my life and have got to know many of them on a personal level. I think of Billy who worked in the parcel office and Brendan Keane. I know them all on a personal level and have met with them in recent times in relation to this issue.

I am here representing the people in Longford who have been affected. As I say, I have heard at first hand how it has affected them and others across the country. One comment in the statement is very poignant, "At our age there's no opportunity to make up these losses, no second chance to rebuild income." That is the case for everybody who felt they were working towards retirement and that there would be funds there to be able to retire and be financially okay. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Regarding the guarantee under section 46 of the Act, what commitments were given by which Ministers at the time?

It was the year of the four or five elections when all of this was happening. The Ministers at the time were John Patrick Wilson and Jim Mitchell in the roll-up to when staff were being transferred out of Department of Posts and Telegraphs into An Post and Telecom Éireann. People in Telecom Éireann are affected by this as well. We got letters telling us not to worry about our pensions and that they were safe. I cannot quote section 46 verbatim but it does say "not less favourable." I allude to the judgement in the case of Vodafone last year where the judge did not rule on section 46. She mentioned that words are for dictionaries and if somebody tells you something 40 years ago using a set of words, they cannot come along 40 years later and say those words mean something different. We believed the guarantees that were given and as I said, one of the questions I had was for the committee: was section 46 ever amended? If it was not, I do not see why we are not being covered by it regarding our pensions. At one point, I believe that through a freedom of information request we discovered that the CWU at the time got legal advice about some deal being done within An Post and the union was advised that before it could do anything, it should ballot the people who were comprehended by section 46 and the union did not do that.

To reinforce that, the letter that everyone who was being transferred from Department of Posts and Telegraphs received literally had the one sentence which I read out earlier, "Section 46 gives comprehensive protection of the pension entitlements of transferred staff." That was a single line in a formal contractual document when they were transferred from the employment in the Civil Service to the employment in An Post. There is no getting away from that, despite everything that went on in the negotiations and debates in the Dáil and everything else. That is a very simple statement.

Basically, it was guaranteed but it has never been carried out.

It was carried out until 2008. That is the other important point.

The only way that should change is if that were amended but it has not been amended.

It is our understanding-----

I apologise for not being here earlier, as I was in the Dáil. One of the points raised in the submissions related to the trustees not being elected by secret ballot. Will Mr. Hearn elaborate on that?

In normal pension schemes, there are regulations that say trustees should be appointed by the pensioners, the employees and the company. This comes from the 1996 accord. However, An Post trustees have always been appointed by the unions and the company and so there is no pensioner input at all. In fairness, there are conflicts of interest. The unions are primarily there to look out after the interests of their members, who are the working members. There can be conflicts between the needs of pensioners and the needs of the workers. Therefore, two groups of people are needed on the board of trustees. That is what the normal regulations say. What we might have to do is to get 2,000 people to requisition an election but the important point is that up to now, pensioners have had no input into the actions of the trustees. If there had been pensioner trustees the 2013 accord would probably not have gone through in the way that it did.

In other commercial semi-State bodies, is it something similar? Is it the unions effectively appointing the trustees or does this just apply to An Post?

I cannot speak for other unions. All I do know is that the Pensions Authority prescribed the regulations for the elections of trustees

Yes, I understand that but-----

I cannot speak for what happens in the ESB or RTÉ.

It would be helpful for Mr. Hearn's case if he could point out that An Post is the only one that is not doing that. I am not trying to put him into a predicament. Maybe it is a bit of work that we have to do to try to find out whether there is a similar approach in other commercial semi-State bodies.

I have another question, which Mr. Hearn maybe can answer. We have the dead hand of the Minister where he or she sits on the increases that are due for months or sometimes years. Is that the same for other commercial semi-State bodies or is it just an anomaly created by this situation?

The rule requiring any increase to be approved by the Minister for Finance-NewERA applies to all commercial semi-State bodies, where the increases are discretionary. In the case of An Post, the rule states it shall approve the increases that have been authorised by the Minister. In 1989, he gave an authorisation that they should be increased in line with pay parity. In 2005, the Minister at the time, Noel Dempsey, confirmed that in the Dáil. That has never been rescinded or at least, no one can produce a copy where a Minister has rescinded it. By definition, An Post does not need to go to the Minister for approval because it is there in the 1989 authorisation and the rules of the scheme that require that authorisation to be applied.

Mr. Hearn might have answered this. What is being withheld financially? If it is a number of weeks or years where the Minister sits on a request, what are the financial effects on the pensioners?

There can be anything up to a year of a delay.

A year of a delay in an increase that was granted, say, from 1 January of a particular year. It could be the middle of the following year before that ever appears. In fairness, back money is paid. On one level, it is a savings account but-----

Without the interest.

-----there are people depending on that money to survive week by week. Everybody has different circumstances. Some people are worse off than others.

Is there an overall figure - not an individual figure? If it is a 2% increase, that is the equivalent of 2% for all the members being withheld. If it is for a year, what is the sum, whether it is €10 million or €5 million? That would make it easier to comprehend what is at stake.

Could I try to help by referring to the present situation?

Could Mr. Hearn do so very quickly?

The unions have just agreed with the company to pay 2% from last January, another 2% from next January and 1% from this July. There is also a €650 tax-free cash payment. As far as the staff are concerned, they will get that very quickly because it is entirely in the hands of the company, but out of the 5% plus €650, the pensions will only get 4% any way. Going by past records, they will not even get that 2% until November or December. That is the best answer I can give.

I thank Mr. Hearn.

I welcome the witnesses. It is good that they are here. Many people realise that the State has enormous power compared with ordinary individuals, or even groups of ordinary individuals. It sometimes seems like senior citizens are expected to be deal-takers when it comes to decisions that are being made. While we do not have much power as a committee, we have the power to highlight and report on the issues that we are looking at and to make recommendations to the Executive.

My comments and questions focus on the situation as it applies to people, namely, civil servants who were transferred to An Post on its vesting day in 1984. As far as I can see, it is so clear. When you research it, it is like a who's who of the political system, including Jim Mitchell in 1983 referencing and reassuring staff. There are phrases like "not less favourable conditions" guaranteed in the Act of 1983. When calculating increases in public service pensions, a culture of pay parity was respected from the 1960s, and specifically from 1972, up until 2004, when Noel Dempsey referenced that An Post had traditionally granted increases to serving staff in line with national pay agreements. Pay parity is a constant theme. I have seen letters to trade unions in 1982 and 1983 to the Ministers for public service - John Boland, Gene Fitzgerald and Liam Kavanagh - referring to parity. There was never a reference to discretion. In 1989, there was a reference to the Department of Communications delegating authorisation to An Post, but making that subject to similar terms and conditions that applied from time to time in the Civil Service. In a letter in 2007, An Post confirmed to the Department that pensioners with pre-vesting day service were paid increases in line with payroll increases applied to current grades in An Post. We have all that culture and tradition of pay parity, yet we saw from 2008 onwards a kind of ruthlessness on the part of the State, and I presume on the part of An Post. The State took back authority to some degree and it is very much in the frame here.

I want to ask the witnesses a couple of questions that have short answers. Am I correct in saying that some of the pensioners involved are people with pensions that are below the level of the State pension?

Yes, there must be.

The witnesses mentioned thousands of pensioners. Am I also correct in saying that Mr. Moreland mentioned a WhatsApp group of about 660 people who were kind of aware and alert to the struggle to get what he regards as justice in this situation?

Yes, that is about right.

That is quite a number of people. Please forgive my ignorance here, but does the pensions ombudsman have any role in securing justice for the claim here? The group before us has fallen behind and discretion is being used against it in terms of departing from pay parity. Does the pensions ombudsman have any possibility of reaching into this situation on the group's behalf, and has that been tried?

Yes. To the best of my knowledge, there is a system in place with An Post for those who do not agree with the pension they are getting. They can make representations. It is called the internal dispute resolution, IDR, process.

Has any of that been done and has there been any response?

There are a number of cases, as far as I am aware, of retired An Post workers whose cases have gone to the ombudsman, but they are just sitting on his desk. Some of them are waiting on the Minister.

My last question is the obvious one. If the witnesses are being pushed around by the State, which I believe they are, and An Post is not doing them any favours either, would they consider litigating? I know it is a big challenge, but that is how to get justice when there is a large number of people, in particular against the all-powerful State.

We have made inquiries about litigation. Unfortunately, we are pensioners. We were quoted a price of €25,000 to get a senior counsel's opinion. We cannot afford that money. That is unreasonable. That is why our group pursued the matter through the Parliament. It is because we believe that, as citizens, we are entitled to be heard. We thank the Cathaoirleach for granting us the privilege of coming in here.

We will put some of the witnesses' questions to the officials coming in later on. We all want to do so.

That is agreed.

I thank both witnesses very much for attending. Like many of my colleagues, we have met them separately and they have explained fully to me the hardship and frustration that they have had to go through over the years. They set out the unfairness and injustice they felt had happened here. We are in a position now to bring that directly to the Department and to An Post. I value the fact that we will be able to speak on behalf of the witnesses.

I am trying to imagine what a fair resolution would look like for the witnesses. What would a way or process look like so that I can get it into my head to say directly that we want this, this and this? What does a fair resolution look like?

An Post has got to recognise what the rules of the pension scheme say, as set out in the 1990 pension scheme and as confirmed by then Minister, Mr. Dempsey, in 2005, and even confirmed later. At the moment, the deficit is probably quite small because the problem is not too much about the past. It is more about the future payments, as An Post is still not paying what it had paid in the past into the pension fund. There is probably a ten-year window to get that right, so it should not be a challenge to pay it, provided the company is well managed and is not losing money elsewhere. Given the losses that have been incurred, the big worry for a lot of pensioners is whether there will even be enough money for the pensions into the future.

I know Mr. Hearn is an accountant. He has shown me wonderful-----

Spreadsheets.

-----information on what is at stake here. Are we talking about back pay or going forward?

No, we are primarily talking about cost going forward. There is a little bit of back pay, as we are 2% or 3% behind the increases. There have been two good temporary payments, if I could put it that way. The other big issue is the lump sums where, as Mr. Moreland says, we have had a lot of inequity. When you retire, you get a lump sum and that is usually used to put yourself on a good footing for the rest of your life.

Has Mr. Hearn calculated what he believes each pensioner has lost in increases in comparison to Civil Service pensions?

I have, but it is probably about two years out of date.

Even so.

It is probably at 1% or 2% at this stage.

Mr. Hearn is a man of figures.

In his opinion, is he asking for something that An Post simply cannot afford to pay?

In my judgment, if An Post does this in the normal way, these deficits are recovered. We are talking about recovering the money that would be the deficit in the pension fund over a ten-year period, so it will be a relatively small annual adjustment. The big issue is that, if the company was not incurring losses on the things it should not be doing, it should be able to pay quite well. There are about two years to get the company right.

As it stands now, what would Mr. Hearn recommend to somebody entering An Post regarding their retirement plan?

Do not join it; join auto-enrolment. That would probably give them better value for money.

I will actually keep going on that line of questioning because it is really interesting and we are getting to the nub of it. Obviously, there is the deficit, there is the back pay issue and there is the going forward cost.

Yes.

Has Mr. Hearn ever felt a cynicism around people ageing out of the pension - he mentioned widows - because they are getting older and have been waiting for a very long time? With the back pay piece, has there been a dismissal of that?

The company does not accept that it is not paying what it is supposed to under the rules. It interprets the rules to suit what it is doing, and that is why we need assistance from the committee to say what Ministers and everyone said in the past, namely, that this is what pensioners are entitled to and it has to be paid. As the Senator rightly says, the real problem, which also applies to the question of litigation, is that there are fewer and fewer people as time goes by.

There was a problem in 2011 with pensioners who had never worked for An Post but whose pensions were being paid by it on behalf of the Civil Service. An Post found that it had made an error that cost it €111 million. I have the precise records there. The real problem was that, by the time An Post actually got to paying that money out, most of the people had died and it was going into their estates, which was not really beneficial to the pensioners. The money was going to their children or whoever. That was not even people who were transferred to An Post. These were people who had worked for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. An Post started paying them and made mistakes, and it had to go to the Government in the end to get permission to pay the back money. By then, however, most of the pensioners had died.

Mr. Hearn said something a few moments ago about how if An Post was not doing certain things in a certain way, it would be able to afford the pension increases and back pay. In his opening statement, he referenced losses. Were those €100 million?

Yes.

It was over four years. Will Mr. Hearn give more detail about that and how it might affect this issue? Has it affected it or caused some of the delays? Is there a fluidity problem with cash flow and is there a delay for that reason?

These are the annual accounts that were produced last November. I will show the Senator the crucial figure - she might even be able to read it from here - of non-universal service obligation, USO, at €26 million. The Senator can go through all of the accounts. I have gone through them all. These are not obliged services. An Post does not disclose what they are but it is a reasonable assumption that a lot of them are the parcel services that An Post provides for Amazon, at weekends, in the evenings and the like. That is what is causing the loss, I presume. When you look at the figures in the accounts for the normal letter service, it is profitable. For the generality for other non-USOs, it is profitable. An Post lost money, but always has done, on delivering inbound mail and that is a problem that the communications union could put right by doing what Donald Trump does by saying its members will not take this mail if An Post does not pay them properly. He did that in 2018 and he got his way.

The post offices are profitable thanks to the €15 million per year the Government is paying. The company, when doing what it is obliged to do, is profitable. Where An Post is losing money is on these non-obliged services. If you look at An Post's cash reserves, they have been reduced by €100 million over the past four years. That is the same amount as An Post is losing in that figure I highlighted.

That is the money.

You have to realise that An Post has been paying less and less into the pension fund. If An Post was paying into the pension fund, that would probably cover its normal activities. That, to me, seems to be the problem area. It can be put right. You can tell customers that they have got to pay, and if the service is valuable, they will pay. However, if they are just trying to use you to get a cheaper price from someone else and if they do not get it, then they are using you for a while. It is a doable exercise, but if we do not tackle it now, we are genuinely facing into Armageddon because you cannot keep - well, "robbing" is the wrong word - paying reduced contributions into the pension fund to subsidise this. It runs out.

I thank Mr. Hearn.

I welcome Mr. Hearn's colleagues - a former colleague of mine, Mr. John Redmond, and his two colleagues here today.

This issue has been raised with me quite a bit and I am delighted the witnesses are here today. I am a former public servant. I used to work for Bord Fáilte, now Fáilte Ireland. I transferred from Bord Fáilte when it merged with the Council of Education, Recruitment and Training, CERT, into Fáilte Ireland. I transferred under terms that were no less favourable. The pension was protected. There is a sense of déjà vu for me. We were creating Tourism Ireland as well at the time, which is a North-South body, and again the terms there were no less favourable. Bord Fáilte came from Fáilte Éireann before that, so we had Fáilte Éireann, Bord Fáilte, CERT, Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland, and terms that were no less favourable ran all of the way through. There are people working in Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland now who came from either CERT or Bord Fáilte. I think anyone who was from Fáilte Éireann is probably long gone.

I see the history here, the commitments made and then the changes of interpretation. It is obvious that this needs to be addressed. It is obvious also there are some key milestones - key times - when this issue could have been addressed, and it was not. What happened in 2008 was a milestone as regards a decision.

If the world was different and An Post was more profitable, for want of a better phrase, or in a different financial state, do the witnesses think this issue would have been addressed?

If I am very honest with the Chair now, the problems were inherent right from the start. I have the documents and the records to prove what I am about to say. The civil servants in finance - I do not just mean the Department of Finance, but all of the various names it has gone under - were fundamentally opposed to the Government's decision to move posts and telecoms out of the Civil Service, to split post from telecoms and, much more fundamentally, to establish a pension fund.

They asked why these people should invest, as other pension funds do, to get pensions when we could invest it on behalf of the Government.

Right from the start, the pension fund was underfunded. Everything that An Post put into the pension fund flowed out straight away to pay the pensions of the former civil servants. It is because of that that An Post was exempted from funding standards. Right up to 2005, they were worried that because of the exemption there was the implied Government guarantee for the pension fund. In 2005, they went to Cabinet and asked whether they could remove the exemption but they were told no. Three years later, they had another go. In April 2008, the Government agreed to remove the exemption from the funding standards and that is what brought the whole issue to a head. They had not funded it before because of the way the scheme was designed. Almost immediately after that, we had the banking crash in September 2008. I think it was the decision of the Government, on the recommendation by officials in the Department of Finance, to remove the funding standards exemption that brought the whole thing to that, and by the time we were coming out of the financial crash, they were getting around to asking how this funding problem could be solved. That was 2013. The Department and the company were looking to see how we could do it and were really thinking about the pensioners.

A delegation from An Post will be before this committee in a minute. After this second session, we, as a committee, will have to decide what to recommend. We do not have power but we are a committee and have listened to the witnesses. I suggest that members give consideration to recommending a speedy independent analysis of what has actually gone on here because time is not on side of the witnesses.

The committee needs to recommend that some independent person be appointed to look into all of this.

Yes. First, time is not on the side of the witnesses. Second, there is an inherent inequality as regards how people were treated and that needs to be addressed. An Post should be put into a position whereby it addresses this matter. We will first listen to An Post and then make a decision on this matter.

I thank the witnesses for their time.

I thank the Chair and members for hearing us.

Thank you.

I welcome the following witnesses. From the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, we have: Mr. Ian Price, principal officer, postal, Internet and emergency, communications division; and Mr. Anthony Treacy, assistant principal officer. From An Post, we have: Mr. Peter Quinn, chief financial officer, and Ms Eleanor Nash, chief people officer. You are all very welcome and thanks for coming in.

The format of this meeting is such that I will invite the witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to five minutes. The statements will be followed by questions from members of this committee.

As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee may publish the opening statements on its webpage.

Before we move to today's discussion, I would like to clarify some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Ian Price to deliver his opening statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend today. At the outset, I wish to note that the Minister and the Department understand the importance of this matter to workers and to An Post. The Minister and the Department actively work with An Post regarding the elements of the company’s superannuation scheme, in which the Minister or Department has a role in accordance with the relevant legislation, the superannuation scheme rules and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.

As the committee will be aware, An Post was established in 1984 by the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, and provides a national postal service to meet the industrial, commercial, social and household needs for comprehensive and efficient postal services. Accordingly, An Post has statutory responsibility for the State's postal service and the post office network. It should be noted that An Post is a commercial State body with a mandate to act commercially.

The Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation holds one ordinary share in the company and the remainder of the issued share capital is held by the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport. In that regard, An Post is an aegis body of the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport, which has responsibility for overseeing compliance with the code of practice for the governance of State bodies.

An Post’s board and management are responsible for overseeing day-to-day operational matters and for the delivery on the company’s commercial mandate, in accordance with Government and legislative objectives. Decisions relating to the network, for example including decisions relating to staffing or specific post offices, are operational matters for the board and management of the company and not one in which the Minister or Department have a function.

With specific regard to pensions, under section 46 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, with the concurrence of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, approves superannuation schemes submitted by An Post. The operation of the schemes is then a matter between the management of An Post, staff representatives and the trustees of the schemes. Proposals for amendments are a matter for company management, the scheme actuary, staff representatives and the trustees of the scheme.

The Department acknowledges recent pension-related approvals have not been processed as promptly as they could have been due to the transfer of functions last year. The Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, has recently met and engaged with the Communications Workers Union on pension issues in order to acknowledge and understand their concerns. The Department has also undertaken a review of the processes involved with a view to streamlining as much as possible. However, while the Department appreciates that the scheme trustees and actuary evaluate the impact of proposed amendments in accordance with the 1983 Act, the relevant code of practice for the governance of State bodies and the An Post superannuation scheme rules, An Post is required to seek ministerial approval from both Ministers to increase pensions and deferred pensions for members of the An Post superannuation scheme. Further, section 2.13 of the code of practice for governance of State bodies superannuation and remuneration annex sets out that NewERA advice should be sought in respect of pension amendment proposals, as is appropriate in its role as commercial and financial adviser to the Ministers.

There are other considerations that need to be made beyond those of the Minister. As the committee will appreciate, the Minister for public expenditure holds a wider remit for public sector pensions policy. While I cannot speak to the wider considerations of that Department, it is important that the Ministers have opportunity to fully consider any proposed amendments or increases and are able to exercise their discretion in approving amendments, as provided for by the legislation and scheme rules. The time taken for the pension approval process is necessary to ensure that robust governance procedures are in place, that the code of practice is complied with and the relevant legislation is adhered to.

I encourage ongoing discussion between all parties on this matter to ensure appropriate oversight and management.

I thank Mr. Price for that.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for having us here today. I am the chief financial officer of An Post, and I am joined by my colleague, Eleanor Nash, who is the chief people officer. I hope in my statement to give the committee a concise overview of the An Post pension scheme, including its structure, governance, current position and the pension accord, and I will also refer to pre-1984.

The An Post superannuation scheme is a defined benefit scheme, which essentially entitles persons to have a 40/80th scheme for a pension, plus a lump sum, and the retirement age is aligned with the State pension age, which is currently 66. The An Post scheme is distinct from the civil and public pension schemes. It is a commercial and semi-State body and its pension fund is fully funded. The asset and liability is on the balance sheet of the company. Both the establishment of the scheme and any subsequent changes to the scheme have been approved by our parent Department and the Department of public expenditure.

The pension accord was set up during the financial crisis to address the deficit with the pension at that time of €500 million. The changes were agreed in 2013 in a pension accord between An Post, the An Post group of unions and the trustees that was put in place. This included several items, such as a cap of 2% on pension increases and a charge over certain company assets. The accord was designed to protect the long-term sustainability of the scheme and ensure it was viable to pay the current and future benefits for all members. The charge over company property was removed in 2022.

The governance of the scheme is with the trustees. There is an independent chairman, three trustees appointed by the company and three trustees appointed by the employee representatives. Any of the scheme’s rules require ministerial approval for change.

The current position of the pension scheme from December 2025 was that it was in surplus of over €300 million. The key to this has been three ingredients over the years: the investment performance of the fund itself under its trustees, the contributions made by the company and the restrictions on benefits envisaged in the cap in the agreed accord. Certain changes were made in the last review, including restoration of pensionable pay, so that 100% of pensionable pay was taken into account for pension purposes, and a provision to increase pensions, effectively restoring pension curtailments that were taken in the previous years. There were some improvements to the early retirement factors, but the cap of 2% was retained.

The scheme assets are currently €3 billion, with a total membership of 20,000. The company is aware that pensioners have raised concerns about the time taken to implement pension increases and timeframes for internal dispute resolutions. These matters are taken seriously by the company. There are, however, processes to go through and the company adheres to those processes, including approval by the Minister and relevant Departments.

On the pre-1984 member queries that have been addressed, the company has taken its advice and is satisfied that the changes to the scheme since that date have been in accordance with the legislation. All the changes have also been approved by the Minister, and we are working on the assumption that he has also had similar advice.

I hope this statement gives a clear understanding of the pension position, its governance and the approach the company has taken to some of the current issues.

I thank Mr. Quinn for that. We will now have questions from members.

I thank everyone for joining us today. I will start with Ms Nash. I really like her title, chief people officer, which is very personable, but unfortunately, her opening statement is not as personable. I do not find any humanity for the situation referenced in this opening statement.

The reason we are here today is because many of the pensioners have given up to 40-plus years of service to this State. They have taken to the streets, country roads and rural roads like nobody else in all sorts of adverse weather conditions and have not got the recognition and parity they deserve. I cannot understand how a company, never mind such a national treasure like An Post, could stand by these inequitable policies. These are old people worrying about paying everyday bills, heating their homes and covering medical costs. Throughout all of this, they are also trying to maintain dignity in their retirement and get the justice they rightfully deserve.

I trust the witnesses listened to the earlier session with the Post Office Pensioners United and they are aware of the issues. We might just get into the crux of that, and Mr. Quinn might want to take this, but it is entirely up to him. First, does An Post accept the significant disquiet regarding how its pensions have been managed? We may be blatant and honest here today. How does the company intend to address it?

We take the pension fund very seriously, and it is a very large pension scheme with over €3 billion.

We work in collaboration with the employees' side. The employee representatives and the company work very closely. The governance of the pension is with the trustees. The company has paid over €400 million in the past decade in contributions to the scheme. It has always met its obligations in the agreements. There is currently an agreement in place, and the company is meeting all its obligations in respect of the fund.

More than a decade ago, the fund was only 80% funded and there was a deficit of €500 million. That was similar to other pension schemes at the time. The Pensions Authority encouraged all parties with stakeholders to address the issues. It has been really successfully addressed. The pension scheme now has nearly 20,000 members, €3 billion in assets and is over €300 million in surplus. At the most recent review, it was in a position to restore benefits to pensions by giving an increase of 6% in respect of retrospective events and restore pensionable pay to 100%.

Sorry, if I may-----

Every three years-----

-----none of that is in question. I accept that is factual. However, that is not the reason we are having this discussion. We are specifically discussing the pensioners who are still fighting for what they rightfully deserve. They are not getting it and are missing out. They had to take to a national protest in February this year, in the depths of winter, at their age and with the limitations that come with age. Some of them had medical issues. That is not right. I completely accept that An Post is meeting its obligations, but it is not going far enough for those who are still left behind. That is the issue. All of the other stuff is secondary, although it is wonderful for those who are benefiting. Crucially, how are we going to address this for those who have been left behind? What can the committee do to assist An Post to encourage the Government? Collectively, how do we leave this room with a pathway forward to ensure that these pensioners get what they deserve?

May I ask for clarification? Is the Deputy referencing the 7% increase from February? What happened was that when we got approval on 25 February, we paid all the increases, including arrears, to the pensioners by the end of March. The pensions are paid fortnightly. We try to give assurance. We sent out a newsletter to confirm that the increase had been improved. We respond to all the pensioners who write to us or call us via our pensions department. If anybody comes to me personally, I respond, or, if not, I refer it back to the pensions team. What we try to do is to deal with the pensioners, both those who come to us and those with queries, and then communicate. This year, the newsletter went out and at the same time, we told people that the increases were approved and assured them they would be paid as soon as possible.

An Post has a direct line of inquiry. Members of Post Office Pensioners United can contact An Post directly and receive adequate responses in a timely manner. A line of communication is open between An Post and this organisation, representatives of which are sitting in the Gallery.

There is a line of communication open to all pensioners in an An Post via our pensions team. From time to time, people write to all of us, as members of the management board. The pensions team are there to respond to any pension query, whether someone has changed his or her bank details or is asking when an increase is coming through. A variety of queries come through, and they all come to the pensions team. People sometimes write to me and I refer them to the pensions team, telling the team there has been a query and asking them to respond.

There would be no individual out there who has not had a direct line of inquiry to An Post with regard to-----

There is access for everybody to a direct line in.

I am sorry, I realise I am over time.

To the Department, I will ask a question in respect of a matter came up in an earlier contribution. It relates to the delay in the Minister's approval. NewERA was mentioned by the witnesses. Do they not accept that there should nearly be an automatic approval, given what was agreed originally when, way back, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs became An Post and Eircom? Pensions and other issues were supposed to be on a basis equal to that in place previously. That continued onwards so there should not be a delay. That is a question for the Department. I will have a question for An Post afterwards.

I thank the Deputy for the question. All the increases in the An Post pension scheme require ministerial approval due to the legislation and the code of practice. Because those requirements are there, the Minister has to make a decision. It cannot be an automatic process because the Minister needs to consider all the factors and the advice he gets, including from NewERA, as the Deputy mentioned. As a Department, we want to see ways we can speed up the process for getting approval through the processes that are there, acknowledging the fact that our own Minister, the Minister for public expenditure and NewERA are involved in this. We are looking at where we can make improvements in the time required for processing.

When there is a public sector agreement separate from that, An Post is dealt with. Is that what Mr. Price is saying?

The increases in the An Post scheme are submitted for approval by An Post. That is for all the employees and pensioners covered by that scheme. We act on a proposal submitted by An Post.

The representatives of An Post mentioned how much An Post pays into the scheme. However, there was no mention of how much the employees pay into the fund, which is a substantial amount that is increasing as wages increase. As a percentage, it does not increase, but, as a figure, it does.

In respect of employee contributions, a change was made, which applied to new entrants to the scheme. It is open to all employees, and continues to be open as a defined benefit, DB, scheme to new entrants to the firm. Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, an employee contribution of 5% was put in for new entrants. As time has gone by, the number of new entrants has become a greater population. That is part of the funding of the scheme.

Mr. Quinn mentioned a couple of hundred million.

That is the company contribution. There is an employee-----

What is the employees' contribution in comparison with that?

It is small, but I would have to go back to get an exact number. I do not have it to hand.

It is not an insignificant figure.

No, it is not insignificant and it is highly respected. It is part of the mix that makes the scheme sustainable into the future.

I have another question that I have not asked family members. Were the pension-related deductions, PRDs, that were imposed on public sector employees during the crash also imposed on An Post employees? It is now called the additional superannuation contribution, ASC.

Our scheme was completely separate from the public sector scheme. The accord we have in the An Post scheme is unique. The Deputy will excuse me if I do not understand the expressions he used. They were not a part of our scheme.

Once it does not apply to the An Post scheme, it is not relevant.

The accord, which was agreed with the employees' side and the trustees, was unique to the circumstances of An Post. To the credit of all the stakeholders involved, it has been a success. A DB scheme with a surplus of that size and a sustainable future is something of which the company and the employees can be proud.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I am sorry that I was not here for their arrival. I had to attend to something elsewhere. However, I was here earlier. We heard from people who feel that they are being treated unjustly. One thing I am very mindful of, as I said earlier, is that senior citizens are sometimes on the receiving end of whatever the State decides to do or whatever more powerful entities decide to do.

I apologise if the witnesses have already given answers to the questions I am about to ask. Civil servants were transferred to An Post on its vesting day in 1982.

They are telling us that despite the fact that there was a culture and a practice in relation to pay parity and pensions since the 1960s, specifically from 1972, and despite the fact there were repeated references in legislation and in ministerial comments that pay parity was going to be the order of the day and there were going to be similar terms and conditions, nonetheless, somewhere along the line, discretion crept in and as a result, those people who were employed prior to 1984 find themselves worse off in relation to their pensions than they would have been if there had not been the vesting back then. Is there fundamental justice to their case that, despite all the promises and hints and indications, they ended up with less than they had a right to expect?

The events in 1984, when the company was established as a corporate entity with a view to heading off as a semi-State company with its own life, meant that all the terms and conditions for employees changed from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs into the new company that was set up at the time. In respect of the pension, the events that took place at the time were that a sum of money was vested into the pension scheme on vesting day and An Post itself then was responsible with its employees going forward.

Mr. Quinn could take two and a half minutes explaining all this to me and I am not an expert on pensions.

Will I just go to the-----

Mr. Quinn might just go to the nub of it, which is this-----

The nub of it-----

They were not told that a certain amount of money was going to be vested and that they will probably be all right. The language all along was about parity. They had a clear expectation. In answering my question, Mr. Quinn might just tell me whether An Post has taken legal advice. Does it fundamentally recognise that there is justice to their claim? That is really what I want to hear him answer.

In respect if the specific issue, at this point in time, we have taken advices and the advice we have is that the changes to the scheme since vesting day are in line with legislation. The legislation was set up at the point in time that everything was to be equal and they vested across, which was the case. The legislation did not prohibit change going forward. There were changes to the scheme since then. We are-----

Was it a three-card trick - reassurances all the way but, in fact, it is "Computer says 'No'" when we look closely at the legislation?

The Senator asked me; we have taken advices that the changes we put in are in agreement with legislation. None of the changes we put in can be put in without ministerial approval. All of the changes we have put in to the scheme-----

Is that because authorisation was taken back in 2008?

No. Authorisation for changes was never vested with the scheme. We have taken advices that what the company has done is in line with the legislation. I presume the Minister has as well.

If it was decided, if only as a matter of a moral claim, that people are being wronged here because there was a clear understanding of what was going to be coming to them and now the legislation is being interpreted in a different way, and if it were to be decided that as a matter of decency something was going to be done in relation to these pensioners, whose decision would it be? Would it be An Post's or would it be the Department's?

An Post could not make that decision on its own. It would need ministerial approval for any change to the scheme or any change to any terms of the pensions.

Have either An Post or the Department shown any inclination to deal with what I think to most laypeople would seem to be a manifest injustice?

The company works very closely with the group of unions on the pension issues. Any issues that the company or the group of unions believe are equitable for change, we have brought to the Minister for approval because we do not have the authority to make the changes in our own right. We would recommend that processes be changed maybe to have more authority with the company, but we are dealing with the process as it currently exists. At the moment, I am not sitting with the group of unions with a long list of pension issues not addressed. The union even has-----

The union does not care too much, is that what Mr. Quinn is saying?

No, I-----

The union is not worried about these people.

No, I did not say that. The union is very concerned about pensions and has put in a huge effort-----

Has it raised the cause of these particular people about whom I am asking Mr. Quinn? Is it pushing it in any way with Mr. Quinn? Is there any recognition that they have a case at all?

It has not raised this specific issue with us, no.

We will have to get in touch with the union.

We will; I agree with the Senator. Does the Senator see that? I agree with him.

I never doubted the Cathaoirleach.

We are circling a very good line of inquiry here so I will probably pick up on where we are. This is a very emotional and emotive issue. We heard from our previous speakers about elderly people struggling and feeling like they are not being treated the same as their other colleagues, yet An Post is a commercial entity and it has to see the bottom line. However, the latter half of the final paragraph of the witnesses' statement is where we are really circling in on the crux of this disagreement. In a way, people feel they should be treated differently and An Post feels that they should not. If the witnesses do not agree with that or if they do not accept that there is any difference, how do they explain away the fact that people are financially and fundamentally worse-off than their colleagues?

To be clear, we are talking and pay parity and pension increases to which the Senator is referring. Is that correct? It is just so I can answer the question.

Yes.

Prior to vesting day, any increases to pensions were discretionary. Post-vesting day, increases to pensions are discretionary from a company perspective and subject to ministerial approval. The change that came in as part of the accord in 2013 and 2014 was to cap those increases to pension payments to the maximum of 2%. From that perspective, all increases in our scheme are discretionary. They are all subject to ministerial approval, but they are subject to the cap of the accord. That has been applied to all pensioners across the group, not just this particular group. That is just by way of background.

Does Ms Nash accept that there were assurances given that were not adhered to?

Based on the advice we have been given, our understanding is that there were assurances at the point of transfer of no less favourable terms but that post-transfer, any changes were subject to ministerial approval, and, from a company perspective, we have not acted out of kilter in that regard.

Okay. Then, we will go to the Department. Does it also accept that assurances were made that were not adhered to and that there is a difference and that they should be treated differently? If that is the case then we need to get them both talking to each other if we are saying that one cannot operate without the other and that no action can be taken without both of their approvals. Can we make that happen?

I thank the Senator for the question. We are aware of the issues that have been raised by this group, notwithstanding the fact that the pension scheme is an operational matter for An Post in the terms and conditions before it submits for approval. The Minister did seek legal advice for clarity and is satisfied that having had the matter reviewed, there are no issues of concern in how the scheme is operating and that it will be operating in compliance with the relevant legislation.

We have heard about significant hardships. We heard about a belief. We also saw some evidence that people do not believe An Post is operating within certain boundaries. I want to know if the Department is confident that An Post can sustain the losses we have heard it is incurring on the provision of non-obliged services. If not, what are the implications for pensioners, if that is the case?

I am sorry; could the Senator repeat that?

We have heard about perceived losses incurred on the provision of non-obliged services, such as parcels, etc. Is Mr. Price confident that An Post can sustain those losses, as we heard earlier? If not, what are the implications for pensioners if it cannot sustain those losses?

I am sorry; financial matters like that would be a matter for the company. I would refer that back to the company for comment if it wishes to do so.

On this issue of finances and the pensions, we see the two issues as separate and different. When An Post produces its results for 2025, it will show a turnover of over €1 billion, which is an increase of 3% from the previous years. It has earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation, EBITDA, of over €53 million, which is an increase from the previous year. It is cash generative in its operations. The company does not look at the company's performance and the pension to try to convolute the issues. The issue in respect of the pension fund and the governance is with the trustees. The pension fund is also in financial strength. It has a surplus of over €300 million and it has €3 billion in assets.

It is not correct or fair to combine the financial performance of the company with the pension. The company has been very professional in ensuring that those matters are dealt with separately. In fact the governance and decision-making rest with the trustees. The company does not interfere with the decisions in respect of investments or the management of the assets, and has very clear segregation of duties, as one would expected from a professional-----

It is not really a case then of not wanting to address this because the money would not be there or, maybe, there is a hope that this issue will go away because it is an ageing issue.

Over my period of tenure, the company has had poor periods and good periods. It is having a good period at the moment, as I have just explained. The pension fund has always been dealt with as a separate issue. The pension was in deficit. All the stakeholders got together and put in a pension accord, which was agreed with the staff side. That has been a success. We look at the sustainability of the pension in its own right for the future. We are confident that the accord in place, and the arrangements for contributions and pension payments, are sustainable going forward. The pension is also reviewed every three years. The implication that the company looks at its financial performance and then makes decisions about the pensions is not what happens. The pension is looked at in its own right.

On the emotive part, everybody is aware that pensions are a huge issue for each individual person. The company takes it very seriously and puts in a huge effort on that. The evidence on how the governance and management of the fund have been over the years, to be there as a DB scheme, continuing to take new entrants and be sustainable on the financial evidence going forward, is evidence of the commitment to it.

I thank the witnesses. So far it has been very informative. We have committed a whole day and are having two sessions because an anomaly has been brought to light. It is not the first time it has been brought to light. Would An Post and the Department welcome or be open to an independent inquiry or investigation into what has happened and the legacy issues, which still cause pain and controversy? In the last session with the witnesses from the Post Office Pensioners United, they said they would like to have an independent inquiry. Are An Post and the Department open to that and willing to engage in that?

In my personal view, I do not see merit in that. The governance of the pension is very professional. An audited set of accounts for the pension fund is produced every year. I am not a trustee but Ms Nash is a trustee and she can speak for the conduct of that. It is very professional. It is chaired by an expert independent chair. The employee representatives are very involved because there is three of them. When the group of unions meet the company, which is at least every quarter in our partnership forum, pension issues do come up. I do not have a complaint from the group of unions in respect of how we manage the pension fund.

Is that a "No" then? It sounds like it is well covered.

It is not for me to say "Yes" or "No". In my view, the governance is very professional and satisfactory. There are audited sets of financial statements and a three-year review of the contribution rates. In my view, I do not see the merits of that because what is in place at the moment has been satisfactory.

I appreciate that honest appraisal of the situation but it reminds me of a session the committee had with Rowing Ireland and Sport Ireland. They were quite happy with what had gone on in one of their bodies but the Minister launched an independent investigation because we had people who were poorly served, and felt poorly served. From what Mr. Quinn has said, it sounds like it is well covered and would be able to operate well in a review. Is Mr. Quinn saying he does not see the merit of it?

I am saying that I do not see the merit of it. I do think that we would perform very well. It probably would not be my decision. I am just giving my assessment from a management perspective, and Ms Nash can speak for herself. We put serious investment into our employee relationship and I do not see a fault-line in respect of that at the moment.

I am talking more about past employees and pensioners. Earlier Ms Nash said that every person had access in terms of discussion or issues. Is the access the company or an independent-----

No. When I say everybody has access I mean that we have a pensions team inhouse and all queries tend to go to them. If people have any queries regarding anything to do with their pension, then there is access for anyone to call them in any shape or form. Sometimes over time people will contact myself directly or the scheme secretary. If pensioners have a query, we do have a pensions team who will respond to their queries no matter what that query is.

It has been mentioned that ministerial approval is needed for pension increases or changes. Please forgive me but I am confused due to all the information that has come at us in the past couple of weeks. Did An Post not increase pensions in 2017 and 2019 without seeking ministerial approval? In other words, the 1989 authorisation had not actually been revoked.

I was not here at the time but I will give my understanding. We had commenced the transformation of An Post. There had been no pension increases since 1 August 2008. There had been no salary increases in An Post between 2008 and 2016, and the first pay award happened post that. There were two pension increases given without authorisation. An Post was clearly told that that could not happen again. We had to give a number of significant assurances that that would not happen again. Any increases from 2019 onwards have followed the following path: the company applies for approval via the parent Department; that goes to NewERA for a full review; the company works with NewERA if there are any queries; that goes back to our Department; that travels upwards within the Department for ministerial approval; and across to the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation for its approval. Since 2019 all increases or any changes to the scheme require ministerial approval and have followed that path.

I have a final question on access to auto-enrolment. Has An Post discussed any possible post Karshan employee liabilities with its insurers?

I do not know. I will check that and get back to the Senator.

I would appreciate details on any communications with An Post's insurers around the liabilities that it has because of the Karshan ruling by the Supreme Court.

Yes.

Thanks very much. We have met a lot of the pensioners, some of us personally. I forgot Deputy Carrigy came in later and he has some questions.

I welcome the witnesses and I apologise for being late. I am a contractor to An Post. I am postmaster. It has been in the family for over 54 years. I am also a public representative, representing former An Post workers. I have worked with a significant number of them over the past 30 years, know them personally and would have met them in recent months.

Senator Ní Chuilinn mentioned that despite the fact the company needed ministerial approval, it still gave an increase without it. I cannot understand a State organisation doing that. At the same time, a significant number of former employees are not getting full benefits and yet it went against the rules and regulations and gave that approval. I cannot understand someone making that decision. A significant number of former employees are struggling day to day. They were given letters when the changeover occurred telling them they had rights in place. That has not been the case.

We have talked about section 46 of Postal and Telecommunications Services Act and how changes or amendments were made to it without anyone's knowledge that changed the situation for pensioners. These people are former employees who built the company to what it is. We all recognise that it is one of the most recognised brand names in this country and that is on the back of its employees and workers, including the likes of myself - I will be at my post office counter on Saturday morning - the workers sorting the mail, those going out at 5 o'clock in the morning, namely the lads driving the lorries, and the postmen throughout the country.

That is what built up the company's reputation.

I particularly remember how, during Covid, postmen went above and beyond looking after people, particularly the most vulnerable. I have met and spoken to these workers and I know them personally. I have known them all my life. These workers are now left struggling despite the fact that they spent their career in the company. I want to know what is going to be done. It is not right. I think everyone accepts that. They were given a letter saying their rights would not be affected and they would be looked after as employees when the break-up of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs occurred. That has not been honoured; otherwise, Mr. Quinn would not be here today to talk about it. What is the plan going forward? How is this going to be addressed?

Four or five years ago, there may have been one or two incidents where the company put through changes to the pensions that did not go through the full rigours of the ministerial approval process. That was rectified afterwards. The company would like to improve that process so increases will be done more promptly and would not go through the process that caused the Communications Workers' Union to go onto the streets recently.

In respect of the 1984 issues, the company has taken advices to ensure that the changes that have been put in the scheme, all of which have been agreed by the group of unions and have had ministerial approval, are in line with the legislation. Those are the advices the company has taken. Forty years later, the scheme will go on its own life and it is completely different from a public sector scheme. This scheme is funded with €3 billion of assets set aside, which is completely different from a pension that someone who was in a public body might receive.

In respect to the efforts of the company and the postmen during Covid, as an executive team, we are rightly proud of the achievements in that period and I think the brand of the company was enhanced over that period. I think the staff side would accept that the executive and board are fully cognisant of the efforts made over those years. Everybody is rightly proud of the progress the firm made in those periods. We must remember that nobody knew what was going to happen then. Three or four years later, looking back, the progress the firm has been able to make is something of which the board and the employees are probably rightly proud.

As a contractor, I have to look after myself. Regardless of what service contractors have given An Post, we are not entitled to a pension. The workers who are contracted directly as employees should be entitled to one, however, and that goes for any company. As a semi-State company, which ultimately An Post is, it needs to negotiate and make sure that those who served the company well for a lifetime are looked after. That is where we need to get to.

We will take away everything we have heard today and we will take it very seriously. We will go back with the staff side, as we do with all the issues. Postmasters are not totally forgotten. There is an unfunded gratuity in respect to long service.

Has it increased?

I should not let that go unsaid. As regards the company's record with its unions on the staff side, our business is our people. The Deputy spoke about how well they performed during Covid. We will give consideration to everything we have heard today. These matters are not taken lightly.

It is important say that a lot of this happened before Mr. Quinn's time. Obviously, it is good that the fund is in the position it is. We cannot really hide behind ministerial approval when it comes to moral issues because this is a moral issue. Ministers, of whom I was one, sometimes approve what is put in front of them. The domino or knock-on effect is often only felt many years later and that is what has happened here, potentially more than once.

The members come from different political backgrounds but I think there is unanimity on the fact that there is an issue here regarding pensions. We believe there is an unfairness and a moral duty on us to address it. An issue like this might be brought up with An Post and the Department as part of a more general discussion, but it is rare to have such an issue raised on its own. That tells us something about the pensioners and unions who have raised this issue - pensioners more so, obviously - and the depth of feeling about it. There is a grievance here and a moral issue that has to be addressed.

I have listened to all the questions and answers. I am not going to repeat the questions because they have all been asked multiple times in different ways. I appreciate where the fund is and I appreciate the decisions and the decision process An Post has to apply within the confines of what it is allowed to do. I understand that. As a committee, we do not have any power but we have to make some recommendation. Without talking to the members, I believe our recommendation would probably be to ask that the Department appoint somebody to look into this matter, and to do so very sharply because time is not on the side of the pensioners.

Historically, nobody necessarily made any mistakes. It is done but when it was agreed that everybody would transfer and conditions would be no less favourable, somewhere along the line, and I know the junctures from listening to everybody today, that just got lost. That was not necessarily a deliberate mistake by anyone. Times were harsh in the State at times and this issue got lost. As a consequence, a significant number of people have been affected and are at a loss. They deserve to be recompensed.

As Cathaoirleach, I will talk to my colleagues once this session is over, with a view to working with the secretariat to draw up a proposal, which will have to go to the Department initially and then on to An Post, as regards how we can, in a short, sharp way, address this issue. There will not be any consequences for anyone because ultimately it is going to slow down but this should be done in a timely fashion to get some recompense and parity for those who, during the break-up in 1984, genuinely thought they would be no less favourably treated. Now, some time down the line, there have been consequences which any right-minded person would say are unfair.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and expressing themselves in a way that has been open and transparent. Many of us in the committee can read between the lines as regards what happened here. There is an unfairness that needs to be addressed in some form. We will now go into private session.