Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I received a response to the question last night. In a way, I do not have to wait a month for the report because I have the gist of it in the reply to my parliamentary question last night. Public servants will be interested in the figures as there have only been estimates of figures previously. It was said that 65,000 people would benefit from the measure. I still ask the Minister that a report be prepared in order to provide further detail than the half-page table I received last night, although the table provided a response to the question I asked in the short parliamentary question. The Minister said there are 16,800 pensioners in the pension band €34,132 to €40,000, and between €40,000 and €50,000 there are 10,100 people. The gist of my amendment on Committee Stage was to extend the benefits accruing to those in receipt of a pension of up to €34,132 to those in receipt of a pension up to €50,000. We now know that would involve 26,900 public servants who are in receipt of a pension.

If I tie in the amendment with the Committee Stage debate, my party seeks that those 26,900 public service pensioners who are in receipt of a pension of less than €50,000 – it is not a massive figure but it is a substantial and generous figure – would be exempt from the public service pension reduction in line with everybody else in receipt of a pension of less than €34,132, as provided for in the legislation. We are now talking about a large but specific group of people who were in relatively senior positions but not in the highest echelons in the public service. Some people in the Retired Civil and Public Servants Association would have liked me to go even further and to increase the pension threshold above €50,000. A total of 3,100 are in the category of being in receipt of a pension of between €50,000 and €60,000. A total of 800 people are in the category of pension between €60,000 and €70,000. A total of 700 are in the category between €70,000 and €80,000. A total of 300 are in the category between €80,000 and €90,000. A total of 200 pensioners are in the category of pensions between €90,000 and €100,000. I am shocked and surprised to see there are 500 public service pensioners on pensions of more than €100,000. I am not here to fight the case for anybody on a pension of more than €100,000 and I do not think anybody in the House would fight that case. That is the type of money people can only dream about. It is equivalent to winning the lottery for many people to be on a pension of €100,000. If one is on a pension of more than €100,000, €90,000, €80,000, €70,000 or €60,000, one is not doing too badly at all and I am not here to fight one’s case, but I am here to fight the case for people whose pensions are below €50,000, namely, 26,900 people.

The Minister understands where I am coming from in this regard. The amendment is very simple. It just asks the Minister to produce a report on the numbers involved who are in receipt of pensions over €34,132. I have made my point clearly. If the Minister produces a report within a month of the legislation passing – I have given him a reasonable amount of time to do that – I hope it will be a detailed and comprehensive report on which the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform could have a detailed discussion. It is important to provide the public with such information because those people were not represented at the Haddington Road talks and they were not represented at the Lansdowne Road talks. It would be an opportunity, especially for the group of 27,900 people to have their case made, as they have a legitimate case. Another 5,000 people are on much higher pensions. More luck to them that they are on those pensions. People here want to reduce the pensions reductions of some of those people but I am not in the business of fighting their case in that regard.

The Minister made an interesting point on Committee Stage, to which I responded that I was happy with the tone of what he said. Just because we are passing the legislation today does not preclude the possibility of some of this being looked at next year. I was pleased to say that and I teased out the issue with the Minister.

It would involve further amendment to the FEMPI legislation in 2016, were Members so minded to do this in the Estimates for future years.

I put on record my hope that in 2016, regardless of whosoever is on whatever side of the House, Members will revisit this matter outside the Lansdowne Road agreement because I reiterate these people were not involved in those negotiations or did not have a vote and were excluded unfairly but they definitely were affected by the agreement. Consequently, I ask the Minister to prepare this report to enable Members to have an informed debate in this Chamber in 2016 on the aforementioned pensioners, with a view to making some improvement to their position in 2016 in the knowledge that will require a further amendment to the FEMPI legislation to so do. I seek the report in order that Members can state their case here in the Chamber.

See this speech in context