asked the Minister for Finance what are the relevant provisions in relation to the offset of a pension granted by the State or by a State body when a pensioner takes up employment with another State company.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Offsetting of Pension.
11.
Prior to the Pensions (Abatement) Act, 1965 the normal abatement provision ensured that when a public service pensioner was re-employed anywhere in the public service, his pension was reduced by any sum by which the total of his annual salary on re-employment, plus his pension, exceeded the annual salary he had on retirement from the position in respect of which his pension was awarded.
The 1965 Act eased the effect of abatement by limiting it to cases where re-employment was in the same service as that from which the pensioner retired. It also enabled abatement to be waived altogether if the re-employment, although in the same service, were in the public interest. Further easement was provided by relating abatement to pay as revised from time to time with current pay levels, rather than to pay on retirement.
Most of the pension schemes for semi-State bodies still retain the older abatement provisions under which a wide range of employment attracts abatement, that is to say, employment in any post remunerated out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas or out of the Central Fund or by a local authority or by a Board established under an Act of the Oireachtas. It rests with the semi-State bodies to decide whether or not they wish to modify the abatement provisions in their schemes on the lines of the 1965 Act.
Is the Minister aware that in certain semi-State bodies a ridiculous situation arises now where persons whose jobs were declared redundant by CIE were superannuated at the request of CIE and received a pension? These people got alternative employment with the B and I and they were entitled to receive their superannuation, as well as their remuneration from the B and I. Now, because the Government have taken over the B and I, they lose their superannuation. It seems to me quite scandalous that this should operate in respect of a Government acquisition in regard to something that was not there at the time they got their employment.
I agree that it is anomalous that such a situation exists when the Pensions (Abatement) Act provides a different regime for people remunerated out of public funds, people who work in the Civil Service but the Abatement Act was intended to be a model for the adaptation of all other pension schemes. I would be only too glad to see the different State-sponsored bodies adapt their schemes in accordance with the Act.
Would the Minister endeavour to arouse his colleague on the right, the Minister for Transport and Power—I know it is difficult to get him to do anything—to change the scheme in that respect, particularly in relation to these people taken over by the B and I?
If that could be done.
It was done for Dr. Andrews.
As Deputy L'Estrange says, it was done for Dr. Andrews. Would you do it as quickly for the other people?
Deputy Sweetman knows the meaning of the first sentence of my reply. When the pension plus the remuneration in the new post does not exceed the salary at which the person retired, there is no question whatever of abatement.
On the contrary. The man who brought this to my attention was in receipt of a pension of £6 a week from CIE and more from the B and I and was told that he either had to lose his pension or give up his job. That was not done in the case of Dr. Andrews. He was allowed to keep both.
The pension plus the remuneration from the B and I must have exceeded the amount of the salary at which he retired.
It did not reach up to £8,000.
Would the Minister receive representations in particular cases if they are submitted?
Representations to me would not solve any problem unless the people responsible for the superannuation scheme themselves change it.
Would the Minister press for changes?
This applies to employees in different organisations and I am pressing these people to change.