Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Government to review the Garda superannuation scheme in order to provide justice and fairness to a number of former members, 81 in total, who have been deprived of their preserved retirement benefits due to the fact that they were dismissed or left the service prior to 1 October 1976.

The Garda Síochána superannuation scheme was introduced by way of statutory instrument, SI 63/1925. Section 13 of the Police Forces (Amalgamation) Act 1925 is the primary legislation on which it is based. From 1 October 1976, if a garda with a minimum of five years service after that date but less than 30 years service resigned or was dismissed, the superannuation benefits are preserved to age 60. These arrangements were introduced to the Garda superannuation scheme with effect from 1 October 1976by way of Agreed Report No. 218 of the Garda Conciliation Council. No provision was made to provide superannuation benefits for those former gardaí who left for any reason before 1 October 1976,except in certain circumstances where they subsequently took up another appointment in the public service. To date these agreed reports have not been incorporated into a statutory instrument and are only being operated on an administrative basis. On the other hand, Civil Service arrangements for preserved benefits, including their cut-off point of 1 June 1973, have been incorporated into legislation by way of SI 188/1 980 of the Superannuation Act 1909. The Garda Síochána superannuation preservation of benefits scheme was introduced on 1 October 1976. This scheme required a minimum of five years service for qualification to its benefits. However, the preservation of benefits superannuation scheme for civil servantswas introduced with effect from 1 June 1973 - three years and five months ahead of An Garda Síochána.

It was not until the pre-1 October 1976 group of former gardaí, who were then approaching the age of 60, began to make inquiries about their entitlements that they became aware that they were excluded from the superannuation scheme by the arbitrary cut-off date of 1 October 1976. Opinion was then sought from Mr. Gerard Hogan, senior counsel. In his opinion, Mr. Hogan states: "this wrong is now beyond the capacity of the legal system to redress" and goes on to state that members of the Oireachtas "ought, in justice, to rectify this wrong by means of the enactment of legislation to cater for the very discrete category of pre-1976 members of An Garda Síochána". Mr. Hogan further states that "there is also the point that legislation was passed retrospectively to enable former Ministers to apply to preserve their ministerial pension entitlement, even though they had not done so in time in the past". This was referringtoa remedy for the former Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Michael Woods, who had inadvertently missed applying for a pension entitlement by a due date under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act.

In light of this, is it now possible for the Minister to initiate a process whereby this relatively small cohort of former gardaí will be able to access a preserved pension? They have right on their side and my opinion is shared by Members of the House on all sides. The cost factor would be very small due to the small number of people and the small number of years of service involved. It would bring closure to a long campaign for justice, spearheaded by Councillor Pat Hynes of Galway County Council and his colleagues. I thank the Minister for his attendance.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator for raising the matter and I am pleased to be able to set out the factual position. It is important to say the terms and conditions of pension schemes have and continue to evolve over the years. New terms and conditions are introduced with effect from a specific date and apply to members of the scheme from that date onwards.

Prior to 1 October 1976, where a member of the Garda Síochána resigned or was dismissed before reaching the age and service at which he could retire on pension, that member forfeited all superannuation benefits under the then Garda Síochána superannuation scheme. This situation was changed following discussions at the Garda Conciliation Council, the industrial relations machinery for members of the Garda Síochána. It was agreed at that time by both sides, the official side and the Garda representative associations and endorsed by the then Minister for Finance, that the new arrangements should apply to members of the force serving on or after 1 October 1976. By extension these new terms did not and cannot apply to members who had left the force prior to that date. These discussions concluded in what are known as agreed reports.

Generally speaking these agreed reports provide that a garda who resigned or was dismissed on or after 1 October 1976 can have superannuation benefits, accrued to the date of resignation or dismissal, preserved until the member reached 60 years of age. As I have said, there was no provision for the preservation of superannuation benefits in the case of members who resigned or who were dismissed prior to 1 October 1976.

The then Department of Finance, and now Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which continues to have overall responsibility for public service pension matters, agreed with the proposals for a cut-off date for eligibility for preserved benefits. This date varies depending on the particular organisation involved and the conclusion of negotiations between management and the relevant staff interests. For example, the cut-off date for civil servants was agreed by all parties to be 1 June 1973. Equally, the cut-off date for members of the Garda Síochána was agreed by all parties to be 1 October 1976. I must stress that this was an agreed date between all of the parties involved in the discussions and was not imposed. It is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of improvements in pension schemes that members of that scheme who had left it prior to the effective date cannot avail of that benefit.

There have been numerous representations made to my Department on this particular matter and we have been in touch with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the general question. The Department of Finance has stated in the past that it is not possible to resolve a case individually on an administrative basis and it would not, therefore, be possible to provide an individual with preserved benefits without changing the terms of the scheme retrospectively. Such amendment would, in equity, have to cover all public servants who resigned prior to the effective date. The Department of Finance has further stated that changing the various schemes to change the cut-off date is not a practicable proposition and there were no proposals to backdate the existing dates for the introduction of the preservation of superannuation benefits. I am sorry that I do not have better news for the Senator.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. It does not surprise me because I have seen the file of various representations made in this regard. At the heart of the matter lies, for a small group of people, a sense of injustice for which they do not seem to be able to get closure. They are not pursuing it for monetary reasons but as a matter of principle. They may have to revert to other channels to address the matter, legal or otherwise, but that is a matter for them. I thank the Minister for his understanding and response.