Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I apologise. Typically at this time, what is happening in the Houses is quite insane and difficult to keep up with. I thank Mr. Sloyan for being here. I am very appreciative of his office.

The first area I wish to raise is that of pension abatement. I understand there have been several court cases through the years where a pension is seen by the courts as a property right and one that cannot be interfered with. Members of the public service who retire, and particularly those who are on accelerated pensions such as members of the Defence Forces, An Garda Síochána, the fire service or the Irish Prison Service, leave service and often want to pursue something in the career they had or as close to it as they can and so they re-enter the public service. For example, an usher employed in these Houses might be a former member of the Defence Forces or something. Immediately, when they come in they are hit with a pension abatement. I understand the rationale behind pension abatement – namely, that one cannot earn more collective salary and pension than one would still serving in the organisation from which you were retired. However, my problem is that if the State want to ensure that you cannot buttress your income by retaining your full public service pension and at the same time earn a salary from the public service, should it not be the case that they interfere with the salary rather than the pension? The pension is a protected property right that is bought and paid for by the individual. Has the FSPO office a view on that?