Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

92. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if his Department has taken any steps to address issues with the fast accrual (uniformed) single public service pension scheme for uniformed services recruited after 2013; if his Department plans to address these issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16472/25]

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The changes to the public service pension scheme in 2013 essentially created, first, an anomaly and, now, something that has crystalised into policy in respect of fast accrual. Has the Department taken any steps to address issues with the fast accrual single public service pension scheme for members of uniformed services recruited after 2013, specifically the lack of a supplementary pension until they reach State pension age? Has the Department any plans to address these issues?

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The single public service pension scheme is a statutory public service career-average defined benefit pension scheme, established on 1 January 2013 under the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other Provisions) Act 2012. The single scheme was established to place publicly funded retirement benefits on a more sustainable footing in the context of longer life expectancies. All new entrants to the public service hired after 1 January 2013 are members of this single scheme.

Members of the Permanent Defence Force, firefighters, members of An Garda Síochána and prison officers are categorised as members of the uniformed accrual cohort of single scheme members. The uniformed grades have certain enhanced benefits that other members of the single scheme do not have in recognition of their earlier retirement age, such as early payment of scheme benefits. This enables them to accrue more single scheme benefits over expected shorter public service careers in these roles. Once members of the uniformed accrual cohort reach their normal retirement age as provided for in section 26 of the 2012 Act, they can retire at that age and receive their occupational retirement benefits accrued at a higher rate, including their retirement lump-sum and pension benefit payments.

These benefit payments are separate from, and in addition to, any future entitlement that they may have to the State contributory pension, which is administered by the Department of Social Protection.

While members of the Defence Forces and other uniformed accrual members have mandatory retirement ages lower than the State pension contributory retirement age, they are still able to work in other employment in the intervening period while fully accessing their single-scheme pension benefits, subject to abatement, where applicable, if in the public service. In 2024, in recognition of changing demographics and a desire for each member of the fast-accrual category to continue working for longer, the Government enacted Part 11 of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) 2024. This allowed work to be done by officials in my Department and those in other Departments. The legislation allows for an increase in the mandatory retirement age for uniformed staff to 62 years for those who choose to avail of it and applies to single scheme and pre-existing public service pension schemes. I will get back to the Deputy on the rest of it.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will jump on one phrase the Minister used. I know it has been essentially a policy that Government spokespeople have used. It is that people are "able" to work after the age of 55. I raised this question on the back of a meeting I had with Dublin firefighters and their union representatives last week. They spoke to me about the specific dangers that their vocation introduced into their lives. They simply have lower life expectancies and poorer quality of life after retirement and higher incidences of cancer and addiction. Recent research from the World Health Organization, WHO, backs this up further. It is not good enough that we are simply saying to firefighters and people in those uniformed services that they can just work after that age. The stopgap of bringing it forward to the age of 62 is welcome but it is not enough and the Minister knows this because, as an Opposition TD, he tabled a motion in 2019 related to the Defence Forces that highlighted this issue. Will the Minister please tell me what he is actually going to do to help those firefighters who are retiring at the age of 55?

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish by giving some further context. We brought forward the increased mandatory retirement age for those who choose to avail of it. The legislative change also allows uniformed members of the single scheme to continue accruing referrable amounts towards their occupational pensions for the additional years now worked. These members will continue accruing pension benefits on a fast-accrual basis up to the age of 60.

Another issue that is occasionally raised by the single scheme uniformed members is access to a supplementary pension, which exists in pre-existing public service pension schemes. However, supplementary pensions have never been a feature of the single scheme, nor is it envisaged that they will be. The wider context, which the Deputy can appreciate, is to try to have some sustainability in the overall pension system, which has been well flagged by many external and independent experts.

We all engage with many uniformed service members of the State who do an incredible job on the front line. However, we are trying to get the balance in the context of what represents a longer term risk. We see the actuarial analysis around that in terms of the total pension liability the State has.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the liability of the State in terms of pension services but the fact that the supplementary pension has not been a feature since 2013 shows that these uniformed services are a casualty of that policy.

Besides the moral obligation we have to these workers who have provided crucial services to our society in the course of their careers, I would also speak to the retention issues that this drives. In a recent survey of more than 2,000 members of the services recruited after 2013, fewer than 1% were not concerned about their pensions and three quarters of them did not believe that they could serve until the mandatory retirement age, partly due to the pension issue. This means that, rather than waiting until age 55 - according to Government policy, they should then seek other work - they are asking themselves at the age of 40 whether they should seek other work. This is leading to the issues we are seeing with recruitment and retention in these crucial services that our communities rely on.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the feedback the Deputy has received. I regularly engage with all the uniformed members myself. I again acknowledge the work they do. The context of the 2013 scheme when it was introduced meant that it was the largest reform of public service occupational pension schemes in the history of the State. That was to try to put them on a sustainable footing by acknowledging the demographic changes taking place and the actuarial analysis and liability that those changes reflect. That is the context in which this has been managed.

The previous Government made decisions relating to the State pension age, as it was important to give certainty to many members of the public. There was a huge campaign in 2020, which we responded to. That was the right decision. All of these decisions have a broader context that we have to acknowledge. The decision against increasing the State pension age was the right one in that instance. We want to make sure that the overall State pension system is sustainable and manageable in the context of the other priorities we have.