Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending and making their case. On a human level, what they are saying is understandable. On that basis, I see the validity of their case. Legally, though, there are problems. The refunding of payment at the time of departure is a major obstacle to what the witnesses are requesting. On a decency basis, I would support them. The State needs to examine their case. The current way that schemes operate, including the new one, works on a similar basis, in that one contributes up to two years in certain cases and if one is even a day short of that, one is refunded the contribution, told "Thank you" and no longer has an entitlement to a pension. One day over two years and the same person becomes entitled to a pension based on what he or she contributes. As such, a number of legal aspects of this issue could be problematic.

Unfortunately, something happens constantly in this country. I do not mean to have a go at anyone, only to make an observation. Representative bodies, particularly trade unions, represent the interests of their current members, as was rightly stated. That is good, but some of the victims of that are often former or retired members or, as in this instance, members who might be due a pension after it has been deferred for a certain period. In the Garda and several other places in recent years, deferred pensioners and former union members have been poorly represented by their unions when reaching a final agreement with an employer.

The committee should examine this matter on the witnesses' behalf. Were they an exclusive group that could be dealt with in an isolated way, the situation would probably have been resolved by now. Having regard to the Chairman's comments, I do not doubt that, if we decide to pursue the matter, the 1973 cut-off date in the general public sector and the implications of that on the State's finances will be raised with us. There is still a road to travel but, in terms of the principle of an entitlement for people who served, particularly if it can be shown that what would happen to their pension entitlements was not made clear by the actions of the State when they were leaving, they will have a strong case.

This is sad on a human level. People who served in the Garda are in a different category from other people regardless of whether they served for a day or a lifetime, as they put their lives at risk for the State. The State has a special duty of care to people who served in the Garda and Defence Forces. I hope that the committee can do something for them.