Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 194: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on the finding in the Trident report commissioned by the teacher unions on the proposed changes to public service pensions which show that several categories of teachers will pay more into the scheme than they will receive. [28741/11]

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 195: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the action he proposes to take in view of the findings in the Trident report which show that several categories of teachers will pay more into the scheme than they will receive. [28742/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 194 and 195 together.

I do not accept as suggested by the Trident Report that the value of benefits payable to teachers in the proposed Single Public Service Pension Scheme will exceed the value of employee contributions. It is true that the teacher unions have voiced concerns along these lines, based on the analysis presented in a report by Trident Consulting entitled "Future Pension Provision" which was commissioned by the ASTI, the INTO and the TUI. In quantifying employee contributions to the single scheme, the Trident report appears to regard the public service pension-related deduction as a pension contribution. However section 7(2) of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 makes clear that the pension-related deduction is not a pension contribution.

To appreciate how the single scheme will continue to provide valuable pensions to teachers, it is instructive to look at the 2009 Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on public service pensions which estimated the annual pension cost for teachers (including primary teachers, post-primary teachers and Special Needs Assistants) to be 22.4 per cent of pay. The single scheme is expected to reduce that cost by approximately one-third, to around 15 per cent. The employee contribution in the single scheme continues to be 6.5 per cent. This is comprised of 3 per cent on pensionable pay and 3.5 per cent on net pensionable pay (i.e. reduced for social welfare integration), which is equivalent to 4.9 per cent of pensionable pay according to the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, leaving approximately a 10 per cent employer contribution.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 196: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the administrative costs of the proposed single pension scheme for all public servants have been costed by him; and the savings if any that will be realised. [28743/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am determined that the eventual administrative arrangements will be efficient and cost-effective, and will maximize the potential for money savings inherent in replacing a multitude of schemes featuring disparate terms with a single scheme featuring standard terms. In the short-term there may be some set up costs, for example if the payroll computer systems need to be adapted, but in the medium-term it is anticipated that the scheme will lend itself to achieving administrative efficiencies in step with initiatives around shared services.

The Bill envisages the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform being the relevant authority for the scheme and allows this to be delegated to other relevant authorities (in effect those bodies who pay the scheme member during their career and who pay the pension in retirement). The employers will, through their payroll systems, collect and remit contributions, and it is envisaged that they may also calculate the accrued pension and lump sum benefits and supply pension benefit statements as required under the Pensions Act (or provide information for the preparation of such statements).

Question No. 197 answered with Question No. 170.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 198: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, further to Parliamentary Question No. 185 of 27 September 2011, the saving if all existing public service pension payments were capped at €35,000 applying the comparable trend as applied to his calculation for capping all existing civil service pensions payments at €35,930. [28811/11]

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 199: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the saving to the State if all existing and future public and civil service pension payments were capped at €35,000 per year. [28812/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 198 and 199 together.

It is estimated that the imposition of a cap of €35,000 on the annual pension payments to Civil Service pensioners would result in an annual saving of €47m. This estimate does not allow for the Public Service Pension Reduction (PSPR). If a cap of €35,000 is applied after allowing for the PSPR, the saving would be €37m. The corresponding annual savings for a cap of €35,930 would be €44m and €35m respectively based on the most recent data available.

These estimates take no account of the reduction in tax and other statutory deductions that would arise from the imposition of a cap. If these reductions were allowed for, the net saving to the Exchequer would be significantly lower. Comparable data are not available for the Public Service as a whole.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 200: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the savings to be State if career averaging were applied to all existing civil and public service pensions. [28813/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is presumed that the Deputy is asking about the savings which would arise if career-average accrual were to apply to the future service of pensionable public servants. Such a change would undoubtedly deliver significant pension savings to the Exchequer. However a precise quantification of the savings which would arise is not available, and would require a large-scale actuarial exercise. Government public service pensions policy does not include the application of career-average accrual to the future service of serving staff.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 201: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the name, position and a breakdown of the retirement packages for all senior civil servants eligible to retire before February. [28815/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that this question relates primarily to Secretaries General and other senior Civil Servants who will benefit from enhanced terms. The retirement terms of Secretaries General are provided for in the Government decision of 5 March 1987. These terms provide for a reappointment in the Civil or Public Service or an international body for those who are under 60 years of age at the end of their term. Alternatively, a retirement package including severance and immediate payment of pension, will be provided.

For those over 60 years of age, a retirement package including severance and immediate payment of pension, will be provided. The two Civil Servants whose terms of appointment include TLAC terms and whose term of office is due to end by 29 February 2012 are :

Secretary General, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation;

Secretary General, Department of Education and Skills.

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 provides for a scheme to be made for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is also due to retire before end-February 2012. His scheme provides for full pension on completion of his term. No severance is applicable in his case.