Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 9

Houses Of The Oireachtas (Members) Pensions Scheme.

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of the amendment of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Members) Pensions Scheme made under section 6A of the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938 by:—

(1) the deletion of the existing sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Scheme with effect from 7 July, 1966, and

(2) the insertion of the following sub-clause in place of the deleted sub-clause (4) of clause 5:

(4) (a) Where a member of the Oireachtas is eligible for a pension under the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Acts, 1938 to 1960, only so much of the service necessary to qualify such member for the said pension under the said Acts shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of pension payable under this scheme or in the calculation of the period of ten years referred to in (1) (a) of this clause, as equals in length the period of the member's service from 1 December, 1960, to the day on which he ceases to be a member of either House.

(b) This sub-clause shall be deemed to have applied to all pensions in course of payment on 7 July, 1966, with effect from that date as well as to all pensions becoming payable after that date."

It is difficult to explain this matter, but I think I can say it arises out of a problem of interpretation. Under sub-clause (4) of clause 5 of the Scheme as approved by both Houses in December, 1960, no service in respect of which a Member received a pension as Minister or Parliamentary Secretary could reckon for Member's pension. On 7th July, 1966, this provision was amended to allow the reckoning for Member's pension of any service as a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary during which the Member had paid contributions to the Fund. It is now proposed to amend the provision further to allow the reckoning for Member's pension of so much service qualifying for a Minister's or Parliamentary Secretary's pension, regardless of when this service was given, as is equal to the period during which the Member paid contributions to the Fund, that is, as is equal to the length of service of a Member after 1st December, 1960. It is proposed to introduce this amendment with effect from 7th July, 1966, the date of the original amendment. Perhaps I could attempt to clarify that a little by pointing out that this refers to a Member who had service as a Minister both before and after December, 1960. In so far as he had service after December, 1960, we propose to allow the equivalent amount of service as Minister before December, 1960, to count for his pension based on his Member's allowance.

As I understand it, the original amendment was designed to ensure that a person who had been a Minister was not excluded from calculating that service for Dáil pension purposes; I do not think there are any Seanad cases. When this amendment was made initially in 1966, that exclusion was brought in. Now I understand from what the Minister says that there is another defect, that in certain cases, persons who were then serving as Ministers or after 1960 might be excluded. In other words, this will cover all ex-Ministers who were excluded from participating to the extent to which they would normally be entitled to do so——

—because of ministerial service.

Yes, but the amendment made in July, 1966, was only in respect of ministerial service since December, 1960.

It did not apply to the earlier case?

It did not apply to ministerial service before the scheme was introduced. Take the case of a man who had service as a Member subsequent to December, 1960: we are now allowing him to count an equivalent amount of pre-1960 ministerial service for Member's pension.

This puts those who went before in the same position as those who went after?

It will not be quite the same but their position will be improved.

Is there any reason why that would not be if they have the full service?

This will take care of all known cases.

They are entitled to get what they themselves paid for, and this ensures they will get that. Even if they are not getting the full amount, at least they will not have been paying for it and will not have as big a complaint.

Payments have been made to these people on the basis of a wrong interpretation and I want to regularise those payments now.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share