That would probably be more appropriate to an amendment of the Garda pension scheme. It could be considered there. In reply to Deputy Booth, I had hoped that I had explained what subsection (1) means on the last occasion, but apparently I have not succeeded in getting it across. The section means in effect that abatement of pension will not take place unless the man is re-employed in the same employment. The Deputy is with me up to that point. If the person is re-employed in the same employment for reasons other than the public interest, it must be in his own interest, and having reached the age of 65, and having been permitted to continue in the same employment, it is not reasonable that he should enjoy the pension to which his age would qualify him as well as the salary for the job, but where a person is re-employed in the public interest—and that is usually done, for example, where there is a shortage of certain types of skilled civil servants, technicians or otherwise—it is reasonable that if the State needs his skill beyond the age of 65, the State should pay for it. Those are the two simple cases.
If a man continues in the service not in the public interest but in his own interest, on compassionate grounds or otherwise, abatement will take effect. The example I gave the last day was that if a man retires on a salary of £2,000 and is qualified for a pension of £1,000, let us say for the sake of simplicity, and if he earns £1,500 in his new employment, his pension of £1,000 will be abated to the extent of £500. I hope the Deputy is with me so far. We are going further in relief of a man in such a position.
Assuming that in the meantime the salary for the position he occupied on his retirement was increased to £2,200, he would then get credit in the abatement operation for the extra £200. In other words, his salary instead of being assessed on £2,000 will be assessed on £2,200, so he will be £200 better off, and instead of his pension being abated by £500, it will be abated by only £300. That is stated in subsection (1), and if it is not as clear as Deputy Booth and I would like, apparently it is as clear as parliamentary draftsmanship makes possible.