Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

52. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the reason his Department will not award pensions to 19 of 20 gardaí who left the force before 1 October 1976 having served the required five years service or more; the way in which there appears to be an exception for one garda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44135/17]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This matter has been considered on a number of occasions in both Houses. The background to it is that prior to 1 October 1976, where a member of An 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 An 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 An Garda Síochána serving on, or after, 1 October 1976. By extension, these new terms did not and cannot apply to members who had left An Garda Síochána prior to that date. 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.

The then Department of Finance, and now Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER), 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.

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.

As previously advised my Department has consulted the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and has been advised that the position remains that it is not possible to resolve a case individually on an administrative basis and 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 applicable to their schemes. That Department has further stated that changing the various schemes to change the cut-off date is not a practicable proposition. There are no proposals to backdate the existing dates for the introduction of the preservation of superannuation benefits.

I am informed that the apparent exception referred to by the Deputy is a Garda who retired with full service prior to 1976 in the ordinary manner. The question of the treatment of that person creating a precedent does not apply.