David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, paragraph (c), line 25, to delete "Act 1965." and substitute the following:

"Act 1965;

(d) section 6 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act 1963;

(e) section 7 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act 1963;

(f) section 78 of the Local Government (Superannuation) (Consolidation) Scheme 1998.".

I welcome the Minister to the House. As I have studied the debate that took place in the Dáil, I am aware of the Minister's logic in not accepting some of the amendments tabled in the Lower House. However, as my party spokesperson, Deputy McDonald, stated clearly, Sinn Féin was not satisfied by some of the responses received in this regard. Consequently, the Sinn Féin Members have re-tabled some of the amendments for further debate in this Chamber today, as of course is their entitlement. This amendment pertains to the pension arrangements of new entrant appointees such as Secretaries General and city and county managers. Obviously, Sinn Féin accepts fully this new arrangement means such individuals will be treated on a par with everyone else in the public service. However, Sinn Féin believes there are existing anomalies and inequities in respect of pension pots that must be dealt with. The Minister will be aware of the background to this issue, which is that many people are upset by some of the sweetheart deals, if one wishes to use that term, which have been done in the past. Although they were done by the previous Government rather than the present Administration, nevertheless they exist.

Some former city and county managers, I will not name them, having retired on pension with a lump sum - in cases where they had not the requisite years of service, their package was enhanced - have been re-employed by the State on a contract basis. That upsets people.

It would be a mistake for the Government not to follow the logic of what it is trying to put in place for new entrants to not make it retrospective to existing staff. What is the logic of the Minister's approach? Would the Minister like to apply these new provisions but believes he cannot apply them retrospectively? Has the Attorney General advised him on this matter? I have listened to the Minister's contributions in the Dáil. I know the Government does not provide the advice of the Attorney General.

The Minister was in opposition for many years so I assume he respects that it is very difficult for those in opposition to form judgments in the absence of the additional information available to the Minister.

The Minister will accept this is an important issue. While we welcome the positive provisions in the Bill, especially those that deal with new entrants, the view of my party is that the anomalies I have cited must be dealt with.