Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue. It concerns an individual case in which I believe an injustice is being done, whereby a person's public service pension is erroneously being reduced. While I would not normally raise an individual case, I do so for two reasons. First, others in similar circumstances may now or in the future be similarly treated and second, I believe the existing injustice may now be compounded by the legislation Members are due to pass tomorrow and which will be discussed later this evening.

In a nutshell, the pensioner concerned worked for more than 30 years in the private sector and during that time, accumulated a substantial pension fund. Towards the end of his career, he transferred to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, which is in the public service, and transferred his accumulated pension fund assets to the NTMA's pension fund. The bottom line is that 62% of his pension now comes from his privately-purchased pension pot. In other words, he paid into the NTMA scheme a sum agreed with the agency that allowed his agreed pension to be paid to him without any cost to the NTMA or to the State. The public service pension reduction, PSPR, is targeted at pensions funded by the public purse but although almost two-thirds of this gentleman's pension is not funded by the public purse, it is all subject to the reduction. He made prudent provision for his old age in good faith by purchasing these added years of service. He could have kept his pension pot or cashed it in. He could have spent it foolishly or could have put in a bank and saved it and now be earning interest from it. However, he did what was advised by the NTMA when he went to work for that agency. At present, €22,929 is being deducted from his pension and is being paid to the State but only €4,400 of that reduction is attributable to the NTMA or public service portion of his pension. In short, €18,524 is being deducted from the privately-funded portion of his pension and this appears to me to be an egregious injustice.

I understand that section 6 of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 gave discretion to the Minister to write this kind of unintended consequence, and I assume it is an unintended consequence. I ask the Minister to utilise his discretion in this matter to ensure this situation is ended.

See this speech in context