Written answers

Wednesday, 1 June 2005

Department of Finance

Pension Provisions

8:00 pm

Photo of Kathleen LynchKathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 84: To ask the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person (details submitted) in County Cork has been refused a pension by RTE on the basis that a widow's pension, under its superannuation scheme, ceases in the event of remarriage or cohabitation; his views on whether such a provision is unfair and discriminatory; his further views on whether such a provision should be removed from all pension schemes as recommended by the Commission on Public Service Pensions; his further views on whether, if this recommendation is accepted, it should apply retrospectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18176/05]

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have specific information on the case of the person referred to and I would point out that ministerial responsibility for pension matters in RTE rests with my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I am, however, happy to deal with the general issue raised in the question.

As the Deputy is aware, the Commission on Public Service Pensions recommended that the provision in public service pension schemes which requires a spouse's pension to cease on grounds of remarriage or cohabitation should be removed. This was one of several recommendations made by the commission in relation to public service spouses' and children's schemes. Arising from a decision of Government in September 2004, these recommendations are currently being studied by a working group on possible changes to public service spouses' and children's schemes, which is chaired by my Department and has representation from relevant Departments and from public service staff side interests. The group's terms of reference require it to complete its final report by end November 2005. Pending receipt of the group's report, I would not feel it appropriate, at this stage, to comment further on the recommendation referred to in the Deputy's question.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.