Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

93. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if his attention has been drawn to the classification of employees of State and semi-State bodies (details supplied). [39838/25]

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am frustrated by the Minister's answer on the pensioners who have worked in An Post for decades who are being given a reduced pension. It is an incredibly serious issue. It determines the standard of living these pensioners have.

Given the Minister's previous answer on this matter, it seems like he is outsourcing a decision to the High Court. It is the responsibility of the Government to set out the rights of pensioners clearly. It is wrong for the Government to come in here and tell the House that the High Court will sort out this particular misclassification. Will the Government take responsibility for this classification problem?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not for the first time, the Deputy has inaccurately represented what I have said. I did not say that we are outsourcing this to the High Court or we are leaving it to the High Court to sort this out. I said it is not my role to get involved in a case that is before the High Court. Let me be very clear on that. I did not outsource it to anybody. Were I to get involved in a case before the court, the Deputy would probably be one of the first to have a go for getting involved.

On the question, the insurability of public service employees, including local or other public authority workers, is provided for in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and SI 312 of 1996. Most public servants employed before 6 April 1995 were classified as modified rate class B or class D social insurance contributors. Public servants recruited on or after 6 April 1995 are liable for the standard rate class A of PRSI. Modified rate contributors pay a lower rate of PRSI, but do not have the entitlement to some benefits, including the State pension, illness benefits and the treatment benefit scheme.

In some cases, people employed in the public service before April 1995 were already classified at class A for social insurance purposes. They are mainly people employed in what are known as unestablished positions. Some of these staff who were subsequently appointed after April 1995 to an established position have sought to be reclassified at the modified rate. This is mainly because they believe it will help to grant them access to an employer's occupational pension scheme. In some cases, there is a belief that, even if they are reclassified to a modified rate, they can retain access to class A benefits. This is not the case. In addition, access to employer occupational pension schemes is governed by their own scheme rules. Social insurance classification is not necessarily a feature of these rules. Having said that, it is the case that in certain circumstances public servants-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is currently a case before the High Court. The Minister is in charge of the law at the moment. He quoted the Act determining the situation. There is confusion about the Act. It is obviously not doing what it is meant to do in clearly delineating the different responsibilities people have under the different classes. That is a problem.

The Minister is handing over the decision-making process to the court. He could change the law to clear up the current position. An Post is also a semi-State organisation and operates under the Government's policy and law. Scope is a State agency. It operates under the Government's policy and law. It is the Government's pension law in question that is problematic. I have no doubt that this will last for years; these men and women will find themselves before the High Court in two, three or four years' time. Some will have to pay costs, which can be extremely high, having taken cases against a semi-State organisation.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We discussed this earlier. The Deputy's concern is with An Post. We do not have any information, and I have gone through the reasons why we in the Department do not possess the information the Deputy is seeking.

On Scope, I will engage with it on its decision-making in this space and provide the Deputy with further information on that. It is not just a question of an easy change in the law. Our pension law is incredibly complex. We have already had discussions on the sustainability of the pension system. I do not want anyone to lose out. I do not want any pensioner or anybody who will be entitled to be a pensioner to lose out, but the laws are complex and are not as simple as the Deputy makes them out to be. Changing the law is even less simple than the Deputy makes it out to be.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If this was an isolated incident, there would be some excuse for it. The truth of the matter is that we know there are dozens, potentially hundreds, of people who will be affected by this.

Regarding An Post, a group of retired workers had to hold a national day of action in Dublin before the Dáil broke for its summer recess to protest the unfair pension cap. It was put in place due to the financial crisis in 2008. I understand, admit and accept this is a separate case to the case we have discussed, but in this situation pensioners have had their pensions significantly reduced because of an emergency action taken after the 2008 crisis. Other emergency restrictions imposed on public services were removed many years ago, yet these men and women, aged in their 70s and 80s, are suffering from financial hardship because of the cap. I ask the Minister to look into that particular issue.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said, I do not want anybody to lose out or not get the pension to which he or she is entitled. The details provided in the Deputy's question today are not as detailed as those provided previously. I will ask my officials to engage with Deputy's office later today in order to give him the information we have and can share with him. I again make the point that we do not have very detailed information on employers and employer categorisation.