Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the members of the committee for allowing me to speak out of turn. The first thing I want to establish for the committee because I will not be here when the members go into private session is that pensions are an established property right going back to 1992 when, in Cox v.Ireland, Mr. Justice Finlay underwrote the property right of a pension. Again, in Lovettv.the Minister for Education, a case dealing with matters dating back to 1977, Mr. Justice Kelly held that the right to a statutory pension was a property right protected by the Constitution. During the collapse of the economy, when the then Minister, Deputy Howlin, was asked about pensions that were being paid to senior politicians and various other members of the public service, he stated that under the Constitution, pensions are preserved property rights. He further stated that he can no more take someone's pension than he can arbitrarily decide to take their house. He said that on 24 July 2015.

On the issue before the committee today, and I have huge sympathy for these people, the Garda representative body, with the Department of Justice, negotiated a deal which dated back to 1 October 1976. I would argue before the committee that the Garda representative body did not represent this group and, as such, it did not enter into any deal on behalf of these people. There is no deal between the Department of Justice and anybody else with respect to people who served in An Garda Síochána prior to 1 October 1976. The agreed reports referred to serving gardaí at the time or those who were represented by the Garda Representative Association, GRA, and these people had left the GRA, as Senator Conway has already established.

With respect to legal opinions, they all say this is a matter that could go before the courts. Realistically, what individual could afford to mount a High Court case in order to establish what is a property right, yet the Houses of the Oireachtas found it necessary to write special legislation to defend the property right of a retired Minister? That is a matter of public record. If we are prepared to do that for a retired Member of the Oireachtas, we should be walking over hot coals for members of the public service who were entitled to pensions but who had them arbitrarily argued away.

With respect to the return of superannuation contributions, my superannuation contributions were returned to me in 1980 when I left the Defence Forces. I got a cheque and just as Mr. Hynes and Mr. Shanley have pointed out, there was no covering letter other than a note to say, "Please find enclosed your superannuation contributions". However, 40 years later I was able to purchase back my pension entitlement from my time in the Defence Forces for the amount of money I had refunded to me in 1980. It was for the exact amount of money plus interest that I had refunded to me. I was able to re-acquire my five years of Defence Forces pension entitlement. The issue as to whether these men got their superannuation refunded to them is irrelevant. The only question the State can ask is that they would repay any refund they got with interest if that applies.

Ordinarily, I would come to question witnesses. I have questioned these men at length. I have brought the matter to the Department and to the Minister. As Members of the Oireachtas, we are the custodians of the Constitution and the Constitution has been used to protect the property rights of those who robbed this country blind. It has been used to protect the property rights of those who have served in the Oireachtas and walked out of here with massive pensions. What we are talking about for these men and any other member of the public service who had their pension property right negotiated away behind their backs, or perceived to be negotiated - I do not believe these men were included in the 1976 deal - is that nobody has the right to negotiate a property right in this country other than the owner of that property right. I ask that the committee examine that. The members should not be blinded by the cost to the State for the State has an obligation to defend the property rights of its citizens, regardless of what it costs. I ask that when the members go into private session they do not examine the issue from the point of view of what it will cost the State or the fact that there was an agreement for there was no agreement with these men. There is no agreement with anyone who had their rights negotiated unless they were balloted at the time by the trade union making that agreement. These men were not balloted. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute.