asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that a considerable number of long-service local authority employees failed to qualify for inclusion in the register of pensionable servants on the commencement of Part III of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1956, because no sick-pay scheme for servants was then in operation; and that a considerable number of such employees could be given the benefits of the Act if the local authorities concerned would agree to grant a nominal and retrospective sick pay allowance to such employees in respect of illness in the financial year preceding the commencement of Part III; and if he will consider addressing a circular letter to local authorities suggesting this method of removing an anomaly.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Authorities Pensionable Servants.
I am not aware that the terms of the sick pay schemes operated by local authorities have prevented employees with long service from qualifying to have their names entered in the Registers of Pensionable Servants which are maintained by local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1956. To qualify for entry on the Register an employee is only required to attain 200 service days in any local financial year, and I consider it extremely doubtful if any employee with long service could have failed over the years to so qualify, that is, to have had 200 service days in any one of the years he worked, solely on account of absences through illness. The local authority sick pay scheme applies mainly to pensionable employees, and the operation of the scheme is entirely a matter for each local authority. In the case of non-pensionable employees, absence through illness without pay would have little or no significance in relation to qualification for superannuation. I do not consider that, in view of the terms of the Act, it would be appropriate for me to address a circular letter to local authorities on the lines suggested by the Deputy.
It appears the Minister has entirely misinterpreted the first sentence of the question. Is he aware that even permanent employees of a local authority, who were ill before sick pay schemes were recently introduced by the local authorities, were not credited with the service for their period of sick pay or illness and that those people in many cases failed to qualify by having 200 days? Is he further aware that even those who had almost a complete 300 days lost a number of years service because they were short a couple of days each year, due to illness?
I will have a look at it but the Deputy seems to have raised something different from what is in the question.
The first part of the question refers to those who, because there was no sick pay scheme in operation, failed to qualify for inclusion in the register of pensionable servants. There was no sick pay in operation at all; that is the reason they were precluded.
What I said was they only had to have 200 days in any one year in order to qualify for inclusion and it was very unlikely that the absence of a sick pay scheme would have precluded anybody from qualifying.
The Minister will appreciate the difficulty when he has a look at some of the records.