Written answers

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Department of Justice and Equality

Pension Provisions

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

525. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if he will address a matter (details supplied) regarding pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54683/17]

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

As I have previously advised the Deputy in my replies to his parliamentary questions of the 3 October 2017 and 19 October 2017, the position 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. 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, 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.

Similar arrangements have also been introduced in pension schemes across the public sector with varying ‘cut-off’ dates depending on the particular organisation involved and the conclusion of negotiations between management and the relevant staff interests.

I must again 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.

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. 

I am advised that if a person retired voluntarily with full pensionable service and having reached the minimum retirement age prior to 1 October 1976 their pension entitlement was not affected by the new terms, which applied from 1 October 1976.  

I trust this clarifies the position for the Deputy.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.