Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

A Secretary General might get the job and decide to retire, taking that extra seven years. Or, because the arrangements of a Secretary General may be slightly different, we could consider a position close to that grade. As drafted, there is a tremendous incentive for a person who arrives at a high rate to leave on sick leave because he or she will get the extra seven years at the maximum rate. I accept it is somewhat mean to base the rate on career average but the Minister has built in a big incentive for higher paid people to retire, take a "sickie" and be certified as no longer capable for work. I ask the Minister to look at that issue because I am worried about it.

I refer to the relevant authority that must make the final payment which, I presume, relates to where the person ends up working for the final year of his or her career. Will there be a disincentive for various local bodies, whether a local authority or the HSE, to take on a person near the end of his or her career, knowing the organisation will be caught having to pay the entire pension for the rest of the person's life as a pensioner? The legislation states that there is a duty on a person taking up employment to make a declaration that he or she has no other pension entitlements. This information could be incorporated. There should be a duty on the actual public bodies to investigate this matter, by means of PPS numbers. It is no good their claiming the employee did not inform them. There was a situation where a worker who had a full-time salary in Athlone Institute of Technology also drew a salary at NUI Galway. Neither outfit knew the person was doing his ten or 20 hours in the other organisation. while he was drawing two salaries and perhaps building up two pension entitlements.

I ask the Minister to clarify section 52 which deals with cessation and reduction in benefit. This includes the case of a person who is to be dismissed for causing financial loss to a public body. From the time of dismissal the right will exist not to pay pension until the loss to the State is covered. What about a regulator, who, through inaction, caused massive financial loss? The Minister should investigate whether this provision can now be applied to Mr. Patrick Neary, who did not do his job as Financial Regulator. I have no problem naming Mr. Neary in the House and I would look forward to his attendance at a committee to answer on this issue from his perspective. He was probably a good public servant up to the point when he was appointed to the job of Financial Regulator but he did not do that job in a competent manner. He received his salary and his severance package and went away with them but I do not understand why we are paying him a pension when nobody in Ireland - nor probably he, in all conscience - believes he earned that salary, never mind the pension entitlement. I would like to have some further detail regarding persons who are to be dismissed for incompetence or in cases where there are court proceedings.

I touched on a number of points. When is the Minister's proposed commencement date of these measures? There is no reference to that. What is the approximate time scale? We look forward to a more detailed discussion on different amendments on Committee Stage in the coming weeks.

See this speech in context